Critical Thinking as Related to PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics ...

Western Michigan University Western Michigan University

ScholarWorks at WMU ScholarWorks at WMU

Dissertations Graduate College

8-1970

Critical Thinking as Related to PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics Critical Thinking as Related to PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics

Programs Programs

Robert H. Poel Western Michigan University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Science and Mathematics Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Poel, Robert H., "Critical Thinking as Related to PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics Programs" (1970). Dissertations. 3043. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3043

This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected].

http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/


https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/grad

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F3043&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

http://network.bepress.com/hgg/discipline/800?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F3043&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3043?utm_source=scholarworks.wmich.edu%2Fdissertations%2F3043&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

mailto:[email protected]



CRITICAL THINKING AS RELATED TO PSSC AND NON-PSSC PHYSICS PROGRAMS

byRobert H. Poel

A Dissertation Submitted to the

Faculty of the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment

of theDegree of Doctor of Philosophy

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan

August 1970

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many individuals made significant contributions to this research study. The writer expresses his sincere appreciation to those who have contributed to this pro

ject with suggestions, constructive criticism, and interest , and to those faculty members who have made graduate study a challenging and rewarding experience.

In particular, the writer expresses a sincere thanks to:

Dr. George G. Mallinson, Chairman of the author's Doctoral Committee, for his encouragement, inspiration, patience, and a memorable association that will be of

lasting value.Members of his Doctoral Committee, Dr. William D.

Coats, Dr. Paul E. Holkeboer, Mrs. Jacqueline Mallinson, Dr. Lloyd J. Schmaltz, and Dr. James P. Zietlow, for their interest, constructive criticism, and guidance.

The physics teachers, students, and schools that participated in this study and whose anonymity precludes

their indentification. Their assistance and spirit of cooperation were outstanding.

Mr. Jack Meagher, Computer Center Director, Western Michigan University, for the use of the computer center

facilities.Mrs. Connie L. Applegate for her help and typing

assistance.


His fellow graduate students, especially Dr. Thomas

E. Van Koevering and Mr. Charles E. Townsend, for their

friendship, assistance, and stimulating discussions.Finally, to my wife, Mary Jo, for her endurance

and encouragement in this endeavour. The writer feels incapable of adequately expressing his deep appreciation for her understanding and assistance that made the experience of working for the Ph.D. degree a pleasant and

enjoyable one.

Robert H. Poel


71-3944

POEL, Robert Herman, 1941-CRITICAL THINKING AS RELATED TO PSSC AND NON-PSSC PHYSICS PROGRAMS.

Western Michigan University, Ph.D., 1970 Education, scientific

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan


TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

LIST OF T A B L E S ........................................ ivLIST OF I L L U S T R A T I O N S ............................... vi

CHAPTERI THE P R O B L E M ................................. 1

Introduction . . . . 1

Critical Thinking Defined ............... 5Evaluation of Critical Thinking . . . . 10

PSSC and Non-PSSC P h y s i c s ............... 19Research Concerning PSSC and Non-

PSSC PhyBics Programs .............. 26The Froblem . ......... . . . . . . . . 32

II THE RESEARCH D E S I G N ........................ 3bDefinitions ................. . . . . . . 36Population ........................ 37

The S a m p l e ................................. 39Procedures ............................... 36Analysis and Statistical Techniques . . 6l

III OBSERVATIONAL AND CRITICAL THINKINGINSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED IN THE STUDY . . . 6b

Introduction ................... 6bThe Observational Instrument ............. 70The Critical Thinking Instruments . . . 9b

i


TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

CHAPTER PAGE

IV F I N D I N G S .................................. 100The P u r p o s e ........................... 100Techniques Employed . . . . . . . . . . 100Statistical Techniques Employed . . . . 105

A Test of Critical Thinking Abilityin Physical Science ................... 115

Effectiveness of PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics Programs for Developing Critical-Thinking Skills .............. 121

Main Effects and Interacting Relationships between Physics Programs and Verbal Behavior on the Development of Critical Thinking ............ 131

Verbal Behavior Associated with the Development of Critical-Thinking S k i l l s ............................... 13U

V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... lU7The P r o b l e m .......................... 1^7

Summary and Conclusions .............. 150Recommendations for the Improvement

of Critical-Thinking Skills ......... 166Recommendations for Further Research . . 169

ii


TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

APPENDICES PAGE

A .......................................... . . 172B ................................................... 180C ................................................... 186

D ...................................................191E ................................................... 197F ...................................................216

REFERENCES CITED ...................................... 219

iii


LIST OF TABLESTable Page

I Summary of Selected Physics TeacherCharacteristics and Physics Programsfor the School Population................ UO

II Data Concerning Sample Schools andPhysics Classes ......................... ^7

III Data Concerning the Teachers inthe S a m p l e ............................... U9

IV Data Concerning the Classroom Observed . . 52

V Summary of Flanders' Categories for Classifying Verbal Interactionin the C l a s s r o o m ................... 67

VI Summary of Interaction CategoriesUsed in This S t u d y .................... .. 72

VII Summary of Intra-observer Reliability Coefficients for the Interaction Analysis System ........................... 95

VIII Data Concerning the Sample Population . . . 102

IX Verbal Variable Definitions . . . 106

X Item Difficulty and DiscriminationIndices for A Test of Critical ThinkingAbility in Physical Science ................ 116

XI Intercorrelation of Critical ThinkingTest S c o r e s .......................... 119

XII Internal Reliability Coefficients forthe Critical Thinking Instruments . . . . 120

XIII Summary of Growth Scores for Each Classon the Tests of Critical Thinking . . . . 122

XIV Comparison of PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics Programs Using the Criterion Critical Thinking Tests ........................... 126

i v


LIST OF TABLES (continued)Table Page

XV Factorial Analysis of the Main Effects and Interacting Relationship between the Independent Variables and the Dependent Variable ........................ 127

XVI Factorial Analysis of the Main Effects and Interacting Relationship between the Independent Variables and the Dependent Variable ........................ 129

XVII Correlation between Average GrowthScores and Verbal Behavior Variables . . 135

XVIII Correlation between Average GrowthScores and Verbal Behavior Variables . . 136

XIX Schools and Teachers in the Top and Bottom Fifths in Development of Critical-Thinking Skills . . . .......... 138

XX Comparison of Verbal Variables between Teachers in Top and Bottom Fifths of Growth Scores in Critical Thinking . . . 139

XXI Comparison of the Verbal Interaction Variables of PSSC and Non-PSSCPhysics Teachers .......................... 1^1

XXII Comparison of the Verbal Interaction Variables of the Top and Bottom 6 Physics Classes Based on the Subjective Judgment of the A u t h o r ......... lUU

v


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure Page

1. l6-by-l6 Verbal Interaction Matrix .......... 862. Sample Factorial Design . . . . . 11^3. Item Difficulty-Discrimination Matrix

Pre-Test . . . . . .......................... 217U. Item Difficulty-Discrimination Matrix

P o s t - T e s t ................................... 218

vi


CHAPTER I

TEE PROBLEM

Introduction

For more than a decade, science teaching, particu

larly programs at the elementary- and secondary-school

levels, has been under great scrutiny. Science educators

concerned with the inadequacies, real and imagined, have

focused their concerns mainly on the failure of science

programs to develop in students the performance or pro

cess objectives. They point to the short half-life of

facts and concepts that are memorized, as contrasted to

the retention of skills of critical thinking and problem-

solving. The contemporary emphasis on the process out

comes of science teaching is evidenced in many of the

course content improvement projects funded by the

National Science Foundation. Among these are the pro

jects of AAAS (American Association for the Advancement

of Science) Science--A Process Approach, and SCIS

(Science Curriculum Improvement Study) for the elementary-

school level; and TSM (Time, Space, and Matter), BSCS

(Biological Science Curriculum Study), and PSSC (Physical

Science Study Committee) for the Junior- and senior-high

1


2school levels. These program:] differ greatly in con

tent and emphasis; but each stresses the process and

discovery approach to learning.

Despite the vast amount of recent publicity given

the programs just mentioned, as well as that given

others, the current concern with the performance dimen

sion as an objective of science teaching is not new.

Science educators have long recognized that the objec

tives of science teaching include more than the memori

zation of facts and concepts. The objectives include

also the development of a method of thinking, or stated

differently, methods of approaching problems or problem

situations. The National Society for the Study of

Education indicated great concern about the performance

dimension in its three yearbooks devoted to science

teaching. The first of these was the Thirty-First Year

book entitled, A Program for Science Teaching (Powers

chmn., 1932), in which three efforts were made to (l)

present a plan for an integrated program of science

teaching, (2) propose a method of adopting this general

plan to the successive grades of the public school, and

(3) suggest a program for the education of teachers of

science. According to this Yearbook, the objectives of

science teaching could be formulated as

"(l) statements that function directly in thinking,(2) statements that describe methods of thinking,


3and (3) statements that describe attitudes towardproducts of thought and towards methods of thinking."

The Forty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society

for the Study of Education, Science Education in American

Schools (Noll chmn., 19^7), clarified and expanded the

objectives of science teaching described in the Thirty-

First Yearbook and gave greater emphasis to the role of

science teaching in the elementary-school. The Forty-

Sixth Yearbook also emphasized the performance dimension,

although it used the term "Problem-Solving Skills" rather

than the term "Scientific Method or Thinking" of the

previous report.

Similarly, the Fifty-Ninth Yearbook, Rethinking

Science Education (Barnard chmn., i960) reaffirmed the

viewpoint of the earlier publications, namely, that the

development of skills of critical thinking is an impor

tant and necessary goal of science teaching.

An effort concurrent with the early NSSE Yearbooks

was that of the Progressive Education Association known

as the Eight-Year Study. As a part of this study, there

appeared a report entitled, Science in General Education

(Thayer chmn., 1938), that emphasized the importance of

understanding and reflective thinking as an outcome of

science education. The committee used these terms in

the same way that the previous reports used scientific

method and problem-solving skills. They report:


k

"Clearly understandings have a central place in education. To secure them is, however, not so simple as the imparting of information. . . . Theterm 'understanding* is here used to denote a major conception so grasped as to illuminate its connections with related conceptions and to result in significant changes in the individual's behavior."

Similarly, with respect to reflective thinking the re

port states:

"This characteristic (reflective thinking) is peculiarly necessary in a democracy, where each person is expected to take part in policy-making and to direct his own life, both in terms of his own enjoyment and at the same time in consideration of the effect on others."

In a recent report the Educational Policies Commis

sion (a committee of the National Education Association)

reexamined the goals of education. Its findings reem

phasized the necessity for teaching and developing in

quiry skills in a democratic society. The report en

titled, Education and the Spirit of Science (Corey chmn.,

1966) states:

"In the modern world the approach of rational inquiry— the mode of thought which underlies science and technology--is spreading rapidly and, in the process, is changing the world in profound ways. This mode of thought is not new in itself; it has engaged the efforts of some of the best minds for centuries. The scale of today's involvement with

of rational inefficacy and by commonly called

it, however, is new. The spirit quiry, driven by a belief in its restless curiosity, is therefore the spirit of science. . . .

The term science is accurate but inadequate The spirit of science infuses many forms of scholarship besides science itself. . . .

We believe that a greater awareness spirit would lead educators to larger and more explicit place of education."

assign to among the

of that it amany goals


5Despite the fact that the objectives mentioned have

been long recognized and are currently receiving great

emphasis, there is little evidence that they are signi

ficant outcomes of science instruction. This may be

attributed to at least three causes. First, it is

doubtful whether the terms used to delineate the be

havioral objectives of science education are defined

precisely or operationally. Second, there are few valid

instruments for measuring the development of these ob

jectives. Third, there is no consensus as to the teach

ing or learning behaviors that are most effective in

accomplishing these outcomes.

Critical Thinking Defined

The literature of science education contains many

references to the objectives of developing scientific

attitudes, scientific method, scientific thinking,

problem-solving, critical thinking, reflective thinking,

inquiry, and discovery. Most authors use the above

terms interchangeably and without adequate definition.

Mallinson and Mallinson (1970) point out that the choice

of term often depends on the popular educational Jargon.

The Thirty-First Yearbook, mentioned earlier, used the

phrase, "The Scientific Method" whereas the Progressive

Education Association preferred Dewey's term "Reflective


6

Thinking." The Forty-Sixth and Fifty-Ninth Yearbooks

used "Problem-Solving Skills," which in turn was re

placed by "Critical Thinking." Currently, the popular

terms are "Critical Thinking," "Discovery Method," and

"Inquiry." Each term has its supporters, but in essence

each refers to the same objective of science instruction.

Mallinson and Mallinson (1970) describe this objective

as follows:

"Let the student become involved in the learning process; let him learn to think and reason; do not expect him to become merely a passive consumer of scientific information."

In summary, they indicate that there are basically

two main objectives of science instruction. These are

the development of (l) a knowledge dimension that in

cludes the understanding of facts and concepts, and (2)

a performance dimension that includes the facility to use

critical thinking skills. The Mailinsons also state that

few will question the merits of these aims of science

teaching. However, those who have sought to attain these

goals know that it is much easier to develop and evaluate

the knowledge dimension than the performance dimension.

One of the earlier efforts to suggest the general

ized nature of scientific thinking was that of Dewey. He

used the term "Reflective Thinking" to refer to those ob

jectives of scientific thinking which have general appli

cability in education. Dewey (1928) speaks to this point


7when he states:

"The end of science teaching is to make us aware of what constitutes the more effective use of mind, of intelligence, to give us a working sense of the real nature of knowledge, of sound knowledge as distinct from mere guesswork, opinion, dogmatic belief or whatever. . . . An ability to detect the genuine in our beliefs and ideas, the ability to control one's mind to its own best working. . . ."

Dewey is not describing a highly specialized skill

used only by scientists; but rather, what Downing (1928)

called "the safeguards of scientific thinking" and what

is currently often designated as critical thinking.

These skills help one to avoid errors, to become more

efficient at attacking problem situations, to be cautious

of absolutes, and to be constructively critical of con

clusions. There can be little doubt that the skills des

cribed by Dewey and Downing are valuable for the total

citizenry as well as the future scientist.

In an effort to identify the process dimension more

precisely, Keeslar (19^5) sought to delineate the steps

of the scientific method. He developed a list of what

he called "the elements of the scientific method" and

submitted them to research scientists for confirmation

and validation. He reported a high degree of agreement

among the validaters. The steps so delineated were

sensing a problem, defining a problem, studying the situ

ation, making hypotheses, planning experiments, carrying

out experiments, running checks on experiments, drawing


conclusions, and making inferences based on conclusions.

Keeslar differed from Dewey and Downing, however, in

that he considered the scientific method rather strictly

namely, a problem-solving process for investigating the

unknown and chiefly a tool of the professional scientist

He indicated also that it requires great ingenuity to

apply and therefore will probably be used effectively by

relatively few people.

Others do not agree with Keeslar regarding the paro

chial use of the scientific method. For example, Burke

(19^9) states that scientific methods of approaching a

problem should not be the exclusive property of profes

sional scientists. He indicates that there are certain

skills included in scientific methods that can help one

avoid error and reach correct conclusions. These skills

he concludes, can also be developed outside of the

sciences and are important to everyone. Therefore, he

suggests that they be developed at all levels of educa

tion.

In support of the general applicability of problem

solving and critical thinking skills, Curtis (1953) stated that although critical thinking as used in everyday life and problem-solving techniques as used by the

scientist are not identical, they are inseparable. Specifically, he stated the following:


9"Training in both is fundamentally training in the use of scientific method. Throughout every day ve are encountering and defining problems that we must solve. We are gathering, sorting out in our minds, and hazarding guesses (hypotheses) as to probable answers."

Curtis also concludes that training in these skills

is a legitimate and worthwhile goal of education and is

particularly adaptable to the sciences because of their

tradition in the development and implementation of this

technique and the abundant examples available for teach

ing and application.

Although critical thinking as described in the pre

vious discussion appears to be a defensible goal of

science teaching, the need for an operational delineation

still exists. Delineations of this skill are abundant

and varied. Glaser (l9*+l) views it as follows:

"The ability to think critically . . . involvesthree things: (l) an attitude of being disposed toconsider in a thoughtful way the problems and subjects that come within the range of one's experience, (2) knowledge of the methods of logical inquiry and reasoning, and (3) some skills in applying those methods."

Glaser then clarifies his view in this way:

"Critical thinking calls for a persistent effort to examine any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of evidence that supports it and the further conclusions to which it tends. It also generally requires ability to recognize problems, to gather . . . pertinent information, to recognizeunstated assumptions . . . , to appraise evidenceand evaluate arguments, to recognize the existence of logical relationships . . . , to draw warrantedconclusions and generalizations, to put to test the conclusions and generalizations . . . , to reconstruct


10one's pattern of beliefs on the basis of wider experience, and to render accurate Judgments aboutspecific things and qualities in everyday life."

An examination of this delineation, as well as

those included in the compilation by Aylesworth (1965 ),

leads to the conclusion that all the listings are simi

lar in many ways. As a result, various efforts have

been made to formulate a list that adequately represents

the skills involved in critical thinking. One such com

prehensive list proposed by the Cooperative Study of

Evaluation in General Education (Dressel and Mayhew,

195*0 and supported by Watson and Glaser (196*+) lists

the following abilities as being related to critical

thinking:

1. The ability to define a problem.

2. The ability to select pertinent information for

the solution of a problem.

3. The ability to recognize stated and unstated

assumptions.

k. The ability to formulate and select relevant

and promising hypotheses.

5. The ability to draw conclusions validly and to

Judge the validity of inferences.


11

Evaluation of Critical Thinking

Despite the delineation of abilities included in

critical thinking outlined above, a precise definition

of critical thinking is still a matter of concern to

some Bcience educators. Most of these concerns have

been crystallized by the difficulty of measuring the

development of critical thinking skills with paper-

pencil instruments.

A corollary problem, namely that of developing

critical thinking skills within the science classroom,

has been investigated extensively and some answers are

available. Research has shown that while critical

thinking skills are not automatic outcomes of science

instruction, they can be developed when direct efforts

are made to teach them. Research studies designed to

investigate this problem ordinarily have a similar de

sign. The design typically compares two styles of in

struction, a conventional approach with an experimental

approach designed to enhance critical thinking by various

methods. Studies of this type are numerous and the re

search studies of Boeck (1953) and Meridith (1961) are

representative.

Boeck (1953) compared the relative effectiveness of

an inductive-deductive approach with a deductive-descriptive approach in the high-school chemistry laboratory.


He used 2 experimental and 7 control classes taught by

the contrasting methods and concluded that the inductive-

deductive experimental groups scored significantly higher

on measures of achievement, ability to identify proper

laboratory techniques, and ability to apply the scien

tific method. In addition, the experimental group was

superior, but not significantly, on measures of applying

chemical principles to new situations , laboratory re

sourcefulness, and performance of laboratory techniques.

Meridith (1961) compared the effectiveness of two

types of organizations of subject matter in a high-school

physical-science course. A control group was taught by a

textbook oriented survey of physical science whereas an

experimental group developed and studied physical-science

subject matter related to energy transformations. Member

of the control and experimental groups were matched on

the characteristics of sex, age, a standardized test of

school-learned skills, and a standardized test of problem

solving in science. Meridith found that (l) the experi

mental group was significantly superior in scientific

problem-solving, (2) both groups achieved equally on a

test of science facts and principles, and (3) a high cor

relation existed between performance on the test of

scientific knowledge and science problem-solving for both

the control and the experimental groups (r's between .77


13and .92).

Despite the findings of these studies there are

still difficulties and frustrations in trying to analyze

the components of critical thinking. Mallinson and

Mallinson (1970) point out that these skills include

observing, measuring, describing, comparing, classifying,

ranking information, experimenting, and drawing conclu

sions. However, they also recognize that the evaluation

of these skills is far more difficult than the evaluation

of factual knowledge. Further, there are no simple ways

for evaluating these skills as one evaluates achievement

of the basic skills of arithmetic such as addition, sub

traction, multiplication, and division. The latter are

fairly well suited to evaluation by paper-pencil tests

whereas the former are not.

Currently, the instrument used most often to measure

critical thinking ability is the Watson-Glaser Critical

Thinking Appraisal (Watson and Glaser, 196U) which will

hereafter be designated the WGCTA. This instrument

measures critical-thinking skills using multiple-choice

items to measure different, yet interdependent, aspects

of critical thinking. These aspects of critical thinking

are Inference, Recognition of Assumptions, Deduction,

Interpretation, and Evaluation of Arguments.

The WGCTA calls for responses to items having two


lUdifferent kinds of content. The first kind of item in

cludes "neutral" topics such as the weather about which

people generally do not have prejudices. The other kind

of item pertains to political or social issues about

which many people have definite beliefs, biases, or

prejudices. Inclusion of the latter type of controver

sial material is intended to provide a sample of an

individual's ability to deal critically with issues

about which he may have strong beliefs.

The WGCTA is also referred to as science neutral

in that the responses do not depend on the understanding

of science content. Henkel (1965) concludes that the

science neutral characteristic of the WGCTA is a desir

able feature of this instrument, particularly because it

permits the researcher to check for transfer of critical-

thinking skills outside the science content area. This

property of the WGCTA, namely science neutrality, led

Zingaro and Colette (1967-68) to design a test of criti

cal thinking with a format similar to that of the WGCTA,

but based on physical science content. They used the

WGCTA to measure growth in, and transfer of, critical

thinking to non-science areas and their test to measure

growth of critical thinking in physical science.

As might be expected, an instrument of this type

has supporters and detractors. The characteristic questioned most often is its reliability and validity.


15Henkel and Zingaro and Colette, cited previously, both

question the appropriateness of the WGCTA because it

failed to discriminate between experimental and control

groups. In addition, findings of the latter study,

demonstrate small correlations (r's between .17 and .25)

between the scores obtained on the two different types

of items.

The preceding questions and doubts are of particu

lar significance if one holds to the belief that scien

tific-thinking skills can be developed only within the

context of a specific discipline. Ausubel (1965), for

example, believes that scientific thinking cannot be

taught as a generalized ability, but only in the context

of a particular discipline.

Nonetheless, the present revision of the WGCTA

(Watson and Glaser, 196*0 represents the culminative

effort of studies and experimentation on the measurement

of critical thinking skills. The present forms YM and

ZM of the Appraisal are the result of successive experi

mental analyses, refinements, and recommendations of re

viewers and critics of the tests. The authors state the

following concerning the current revision:

"The end result is a battery which includes those tests and items found to be most functional and significant and which appear to be measuring critical thinking as defined . . . ."

In addition, normative data are available for the


16Appralsal based on 20,312 students in grades 9 to 12.

Reliability coefficients based on odd-even calculations

corrected with the Spearman-Brown Formula and standard

errors of measurements are respectively, .80 and U.6.

Studies reported by Westbrook and Sellers (1967)

and Watson and Glaser (196I1) dealt with the intercorre

lation of the subtests and the total test. Low inter

correlation coefficients ranging from .21 to .U6 in the

Watson and Glaser report and .12 to .52 in the Westbrook

and Sellers report support the viewpoint that distinct

abilities are being measured by the subtests with some

overlap to warrant their inclusion in one total score.

Similar evidence of the relationship of the subtests to

the Apprai sal as a whole is found in the correlation

coefficients between the subtests and the total test.

These coefficients which range from .56 to .76 further

support the belief that the total score yielded by the

subtests represents a valid estimate of the proficiency

of individuals with respect to critical thinking skills.

Rust (i960) made a factor analyses of 3 tests of

critical thinking including the WGCTA. She found that

the WGCTA, as indicated by scores on the subtests, demon

strated the existence of discrete subdivisions of criti

cal thinking. In a subsequent study (1965)$ she found

that when the items were grouped according to the


17testmakers’ logical groupings, factor analysis yielded

3 factors that support the conclusion that the grouping

of items in subtests affects the factor content. She

identified the principal factors as General Reasoning,

Logical Discrimination or Application of Logical Prin

ciples, and a somewhat more obscure factor called Verbal

Reasoning.

In summary, a review of tests of critical thinking

and the measurement of critical thinking skills leads to

several conclusions. First, measuring critical thinking

as operationally defined is not the same as evaluating

ability to add, subtract, or spell. Critical thinking

is less susceptible to direct testing than these skills

and probably must be measured in terms of the character

istics exhibited by good critical thinkers, namely the

ability to observe, compare, collect and interpret data,

test hypotheses, and draw conclusions. Second, formal

paper-pencil testing techniques now available are not as

well suited to measuring the performance dimension of

science as the knowledge dimension. Accordingly, the

primary means to date of evaluating this necessary but

difficult facet of science instruction has been a com

bination of informal observations and the more formal

paper-pencil testing approaches. Thirdly, the WGCTA

represents the most commonly used commercial paper-pencil


18instrument for measuring critical-thinking skills. The

Watson-Glaser Test has some characteristics which are

questioned; however, Judgments hy qualified persons

(Watson and Glaser, 196U) and the authors indicate that

the Appraisal represents an adequate sample of critical-

thinking skills and the total score yielded by the test

represents a valid estimate of an individual's critical

thinking ability.

For the purposes of this study, critical thinking

includes the following:

1. The identification and definition of problems.

2. The selection and gathering of pertinent evi

dence needed to solve the problem.

3. The recognition of assumptions.

U. The formulation of relevant and promising

hypothese s.

5. The interpretation of data and the ability to

interpolate and extrapolate from these data.

6. The testing of hypotheses and the ability to

draw valid conclusions and inferences.

This delineation, basically a modification of a listing

developed by a committee of the American Council of

Education (Dressel and Mayhew, 195*0 » influenced the

work of Watson and Glaser (196*0. In addition, the WGCTA

purports to sample adequately these abilities and give a


19valid estimate of an individual's proficiency in these

aspects of critical thinking.

The term "Critical Thinking" as used in this report

is assumed to include the implications of terms often

used synonymously; namely, problem-solving, scientific

method, scientific thinking, discovery method, reflec

tive thinking, and inquiry. However, unlike the tradi

tional view of "steps of the scientific method," this

investigator rejects the idea that critical thinking pre

supposes a linear sequence of steps that are followed.

Rather, for the purposes of this study, the elements of

critical thinking are related behaviors in a matrix of

activities that result in problem-solving and effective

thinking.

PSSC and Hon-PSSC Physics

Problems of science instruction are not limited only

to the evaluation of critical-thinking skills. The prob

lems of organization of course content, philosophy, and

the function of the science laboratory have also been

widely debated in the last decade. The problems with

respect to the teaching of physics are perhaps typical.

Prior to the 196o's, concern was expressed about

the decline in physics enrollments in the high-school at

a time when other sciences were experiencing rising or


20steady enrollments. Hurd (1953) expressed the view that

physics had lest its place as a high-school subject and

suggested that high-school physics be replaced with some

type of physical-science course. Mallinson (1955) ar

gued for retaining high-school physics, but suggested

that it be taught in a more interesting and qualitative

fashion. He also suggested physical science as a pre

requisite in grades 9 and 10 for prospective science

students.

In October of 1957, the launching of Sputnik I

caused an uproar that resulted in the focus of attention

on science education. Responses to this scrutiny were

immediate, varied, and often confusing. One direction

of response to the initial wave of criticism was the re

vamping of the science curricula. Initially the Ford,

Sloan, and Carnegie Foundations provided funds to study

and revise science programs. Shortly, the National

Science Foundation Joined this effort with large quanti

ties of monies appropriated for the expressed purpose of

improving course content in the sciences. The first ef

fort in this area was in physics and was undertaken by

the Physical Science Study Committee.

The PSSC physics course was instituted in the late

1950'3, prior to the launching of Sputnik I, at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the direc

torship of J. R. Zacharias. The PSSC course was supported


21chiefly, but not initially, by the National Science

Foundation; and, over the life of the project,

$5,276,683 has been expended on development and about

$U,600,000 on summer institutes to provide instruction

for teachers in the philosophy and use of the PSSC

materials (Van Koevering, 1969).

The philosophy of the PSSC program is probably best

summarized in the preface of the Teacher's Resource Book

and Guide (Physical Science Study Committee, 1965) for

the second edition of the textbook. It states:

"The PSSC course essays the task of providing, at the introductory level, a conceptual framework of contemporary physics, and of showing how physical knowledge is acquired experimentally and woven into physical theory--how theory in turn directs and illuminates experimentation. The subject is presented not as a static codification of physical ideas, but as an integrated picture of contemporary physics--as a model of man's intellectual activity, human, and therefore fallible, but a purposeful mode of inquiry.

The content of the PSSC course has been chosen, not simply to 'cover' physics, but to display the structure of the field. The course is not as broad topically as some, but the topics that have been selected are explored more fully than in other beginning courses. The pattern evolved in the course is one in which the earliest work is cast in terms of the overall picture that is sought. It is a pattern in which central ideas recur, each time to be carried further in a higher synthesis of ideas.It is a pattern which, as an alternative to authoritative assertion of principles followed by illustration of example, works from phenomena to theory.The frequent analysis of experiments in the text and films and the carefully integrated laboratory work strive to give meaning to physical laws and theories and an understanding of how they are formulated."


22

Trowbridge (1965) compared the objectives of the

PSSC program with those of traditional physics courses.

He determined the objectives of PSSC and traditional

programs by reviewing published materials concerning

the various programs, studying the textbooks, and inter

viewing teachers who had taught both types of courses.

He concluded that PSSC physics and traditional physics

have unique as well as common objectives. Among those

objectives described as unique to PSSC, the following

are pertinent:

1. To emphasize the method of laboratory investi

gation for learning.

2. To emphasize the major concepts and principles

of physics mainly from the standpoint of their

contributions to physics as a pure science

rather than an applied science.

3. To make the laboratory central in the learning

process by designing it as a process of inquiry

of natural physical problems.

U. To emphasize the study of a few major topics at

considerable depth.

Objectives unique to what Trowbridge called "tradi

tional physics" included the following:

1. To teach the application of physics principles

to modern technology and to devices common in


23the life of the student.

2. To use a textbook that helps students retain

learned information by the use of, among others,

summaries, glossaries, tables, and lists of

conclusions,

3. To help the student become a more intelligent

consumer of the products of modern technology.

1*. To use the laboratory to verify facts and prin

ciples cf physics.

5. To teach the elements of the scientific method

and skill in its use.

6 . To study essentially the following areas of

physics: mechanics, heat, sound, light, magne

tism, electricity, electronics, atomic structure,

and nuclear energy.

7. To emphasize the use of the laboratory for the

development of instrumental skills.

Another study by Moore (1968) that extended the work

of Trowbridge also identified objectives of PSSC and non-

PSSC physics programs. He reexamined the lists developed

by Trowbridge using four criteria, namely, (l) each ob

jective selected must not be applicable to the other cur

riculum, (2 ) each objective chosen must be widely appli

cable to the entire course and not just to one particular

Begment, (3) each objective selected must be such that


2k

observable teacher (and student) verbal and non-verbal

behaviors consistent with it can be determined, and (J*)

preference is given to pairs of objectives that are

representative of opposing viewpoints in the two curri

cula .

This modified set of objectives was submitted to

1*5 high-school physics teachers with PSSC and non-PSSC

experience for validation. As a result, 6 unique non-

PSSC and 8 unique PSSC objectives were selected. This

list of Ik objectives supported the previous findings

of Trowbridge, namely that PSSC and non-PSSC physics

programs have some objectives in common, but that many

objectives are unique to the respective curricula.

Amon^ the goals unique to each physics program, the

main aim of the PSSC physics program to develop critical-

thinking skillsis evident. An analysis of the objectives

of each program support this belief as well as the pub

lications of the Physical Science Study Committee. The

following statements are typical:

"The program concentrates on fewer facts than are usually included in an elementary physics course. Understanding these facts is emphasized; memorization is not."

"Questions and analogies direct the student's thoughts toward discovery, but he is seldom told what to do."

"The new approach to physics is termed phenomenological. Beginning in the laboratory where they directly observe the behavior of matter and energy,


25the students learn to think and plan. They construct models, or theories, and they experiment."

Similarly, Day (196U) and Henkel (1965) investi

gated the effectiveness of the PSSC program. In their

analyses of the PSSC program, they stated the following:

"These materials are presented in such a manner that they should teach the pupil how to use inquiry and scientific methods in reaching valid conclusions. It appears to this writer that the topics of subject matter are chosen for the purpose of: (l) developing a way of thinking calledscientific thinking or perhaps critical thinking

If1 1 • «

Day

"Inherent in this approach (PSSC) is the attempt to stimulate the development of critical thinking in students by the use of more open-ended experiments and of thought-provoking problems."

Henkel

In summary, one may conclude that the PSSC physics

program professes to be different from non-PSSC programs

in philosophy, objectives, and design. Studies have

found differences between the objectives of the PSSC and

non-PSSC physics programs. Among these differences, the

development of critical and independent thinking skills

appear to be of major importance. Opinions of the

writing committee and the analyses of other qualified

researchers support the belief that the development of

critical thinking is a primary goal of the PSSC program.


26

Research Concerning PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics Programs

The previous section described the PSSC and non-

PSSC physics curricula together with their similarities

and differences. Among these differences, the goal of

developing critical thinking skills stands out as a

major aim of the PSSC program. In general, these dif

ferences plus the amount of money, man hours, and energy

expended in the development of the PSSC program have re

sulted in the tacit assumption by many that it is super

ior to the non-PSSC programs.

Several researchers have investigated the relative

effectiveness of PSSC and non-PSSC physics programs by

comparing their outcomes. These outcomes include physics

program achievement, understanding of science and the

scientific enterprise, and critical thinking.

In one of the first studies designed to measure the

relative effectiveness of the two curricula, Hipsher

(1961) compared the achievement of PSSC students with

that of non-PSSC physics students. He used two groups

of students, 109 of whom took PSSC physics and 99 of

whom took non-PSSC physics. He used statistical controls

to equate the groups for initial differences in scholas

tic aptitude, prior achievement in natural science, phys

ical science aptitude, and socio-economic status on the


27

final achievement score. On the basis of scores obtained

on the Cooperative Physics Test, he concluded that tra

ditional physics students were significantly superior to

PSSC students in physics achievement.

Critics (Swartz, 1969) and supporters of the FSSC

program (Friedman et al. . 1962) responded vehemently

that Hipsher's research findings were misinterpreted

because the Cooperative Physics Test was designed for

traditional physics programs and objectives and there

fore did not account for the different objectives and

philosophy of the PSSC program. They further point out

that realistic evaluation of physics achievement com

paring PSSC and non-PSSC students must take into account

differences in the nature and objectives of the con

trasting programs. They (Friedman et al.. 1962) point

out that preliminary results of other studies indicate

that differences in physics achievement do not favor the

traditional physics student.

In response to this criticism, Sawyer (196U ) de

signed a criterion i nstrument which purported to evalu

ate both objectives of PSSC and traditional physics.

He enlisted the aid of two PSSC and two traditional

physics teachers to develop a composite final exam which

contained an equal number of items Judged to be evalua

tors of PSSC and traditional physics objectives. After


28pre- and post-testing two PSSC and two non-PSSC classes,

Sawyer found that PSSC students achieved significantly

higher on the PSSC portion of the exam and non-PSSC

students achieved significantly higher on the non-PSSC

portion of the test. He also found that non-PSSC stu

dents obtained higher scores on the composite exam as a

whole.

Two other studies by Trent (1965) and Crumb (1965)

were designed to investigate the student's understanding

of science and scientific enterprise. The criterion in

strument used in both studies was the Test on Under

standing Science (hereafter TOUS). Trent (1965) used

students in twenty-six PSSC and twenty-six non-PSSC

classrooms and adjusted final scores for prior science

understanding and mental ability. He found no signifi

cant differences between the PSSC and non-PSSC groups on

the criterion measure.

In his study, Crumb (1965) used 1,275 students from

29 Nebraska high-schools. He divided the students into

four groups on the basis of the teacher's previous train

ing in physics and whether they used PSSC or the tradi

tional programs. After adjusting final scores for scho

lastic aptitude, background knowledge in the natural

sciences, and prior science understanding, he concluded

that students in PSSC classes showed a greater gain in


29understanding science as measured by TOUS than students

in traditional physics classes.

Several studies have investigated the effect of

the PSSC physics course on the development of critical-

thinking skills. Representative of these efforts are

the studies of Day (196*0 » Henkel (1965)* and Brakken

(1965)•Day (196U) investigated the relationship between

the types of physics experiences of students in 13

Colorado high-schools and their critical-thinking abil

ities. He used the WGCTA as the criterion measure of

critical-thinking ability. He used statistical controls

to equate the groups on the basis of prior intelligence,

achievement, course background, and mobility. Three

groups of seniors were obtained from each of the parti

cipating schools. One group consisted only of students

taking PSSC physics, another group of those students en

rolled in traditional physics, and a third groups of

seniors who were not enrolled in physics. Using the

WGCTA on a pre- and post-test basis to obtain a measure

of growth in critical thinking, Day concluded that (l)

students who take PSSC physics exhibit a greater ability

to solve critical-thinking problems than do those stu

dents who do not take physics, (2) the results suggest a

slight, but non-significant advantage for PSSC students


29understanding science as measured by TQUS than students

in traditional physics classes.

Several studies have investigated the effect of

the PSSC physics course on the development of critical-

thinking skills. Representative of these efforts are

the studies of Day (196U), Henkel (1965)* and Brakken

(1965).

Day (196U) investigated the relationship between

the types of physics experiences of students in 13

Colorado high-schools and their critical-thinking abil

ities. He used the WGCTA as the criterion measure of

critical-thinking ability. He used statistical controls

to equate the groups on the basis of prior intelligence,

achievement, course background, and mobility. Three

groups of seniors were obtained from each of the parti

cipating schools. One group consisted only of students

taking PSSC physics, another group of those students en

rolled in traditional physics, and a third groups of

seniors who were not enrolled in physics. Using the

WGCTA on a pre- and post-test basis to obtain a measure

of growth in critical thinking, Day concluded that (l)

students who take PSSC physics exhibit a greater ability

to solve critical-thinking problems than do those stu

dents who do not take physics, (2) the results suggest a

slight, but non-significant advantage for PSSC students


30over non-PSSC students; and a slight non-significant ad

vantage of non-PSSC students over students without any

physics experience, and (3) of the small proportion of

PSSC and non-PSSC students whose instructors taught both

courses, the PSSC students have a negative attitude to

ward the course as compared to the non-PSSC students.

Henkel (1965) studied the comparative effects of

PSSC and traditional physics on the critical-thinking

skills of undergraduate college students. lie employed

an experimental group using the PSSC curriculum and two

control groups, one taught by the large group lecture-

recitation method and the other by small group discussion

methods. He also used the WGCTA to measure the dependent

variable and found that (l) all students increased their

ability to think critically to a greater extent than

normally expected for college students in general, (2)

the only significant growth in critical thinking was for

the experimental (PSSC) group, and (3) the growth in

critical thinking of those students with prior high-

school physics training was significantly greater than

the growth of those students without the benefit of

formal physics training.

Brakken (1965) researched the relative effects which

PSSC and conventional physics approaches have on certain

intellectual aptitudes possessed by students. He used


the Holzinger-Crowder Uni-Faetor Test, the WGCTA, and a

final exam (PSSC final exam and Dunning Physics Test

respectively for the two groups) on a pre- and post-test

basis with 309 PSSC and 22k non-PSSC students. Using

the factor-analysis technique, he identified four fac

tors (verbal, spatial, numerical, and critical thinking-

reasoning) as intellectual aptitudes. He found no sig

nificant changes in patterns for the conventional group.

His factor analysis also showed a tendency for critical

thinking-reasoning to decrease in importance as a pre

dictor of physics achievement during the courses for

both groups, but to a greater extent for the conventional

physics group. Both groups demonstrated significant

gains on all sections of the tests; but, the PSSC groups

showed greater gains on the WGCTA and the conventional

groups showed greater gains on the Holzinger-Crowder

Test. In conclusion, Brakken interpreted his analysis

to indicate a greater dependence on verbal ability in

the non-PSSC physics classroom.

A review of the content, organization, and objec

tives of the PSSC and non-PSSC physics programs have

caused many to expect differences in the achievement and

attitudinal outcomes. However, research does not indi

cate a clear-cut advantage for the PSSC program in the

areas of physics achievement, understanding science, or


32critical thinking. Thus, there is little conclusive

evidence to suggest any significant superiority for the

PSSC physics program.

The Problem

This study was motivated by the inconclusive find

ings of research, as well as a number of unanswered

questions concerning the development of critical-thinking

skills. Although the development of critical-thinking

skills is a goal of all science teaching and education in

general, this study is limited to the investigation of

improving critical-thinking skills in the physics class

room. The choice of limiting this study to the area of

physics instruction is motivated by the necessity of de

fining a manageable problem that could be investigated.

Since earlier research studies concerning the effi

cacy of various physics curricula have been inconclusive,

this investigation is designed to reexamine this problem.

Significant changes in design center around a larger

sample population and the control of teacher-pupi1 verbal

classroom behavior. The basic problem concerns the de

velopment of critical-thinking skills in the physics

classroom and the effect that PSSC and non-PSSC physics

curricula have on this development. Ancillary problems

involve the development of a test of critical-thinking


33ability in the physical sciences and an attempt to iden

tify the verbal classroom behavior of physics teachers

and students that enhance critical thinking. Specifi

cally, this study was initiated to provide data con

cerning the following questions:

1. Can a reliable and valid instrument be con

structed using physical science content to

measure growth in critical-thinking skills?

2. Is the PSSC physics program more effective

than the non-PSSC physics programs in devel

oping critical thinking skills?

3. Are any teacher-pupil verbal interaction be

haviors or patterns associated with growth in

critical thinking?

U. What is the effect of the interrelationship

between teacher-student verbal behavior and

physics curricula on the students' growth in

critical thinking?


CHAPTER II

THE RESEARCH DESIGN

The purposes of this chapter are to (l) indicate the

specific questions to which answers are sought in this

study together with pertinent terms and their definitions,

(2) report on the population and sample, (3) describe the

procedures used to collect data, and (U) describe the re

search design and methods used to analyze the data.

The data collected in this study consist of the

scores of students on two measures of critical thinking

in 53 classes of high-school physics and on a measure of

verbal interaction in 30 classes of high-school physics

taught by 27 teachers. For convenience, the hypotheses

are stated as questions around which the collection of

data was oriented. Data for question 1 were collected

from students in all 53 classrooms. Data for questions

2 through 6 were collected from studentB in the 30 class

rooms in which the measures of verbal interaction were

used. Question 7 concerns the development of a critical

thinking test. The specific questions are:

1. What differences exist between PSSC and non-

PSSC physics students in the development of

critical-thinking skills as measured by the

3U


criterion instruments?

2. What differences exist between students in PSSC

and non-PSSC physics classes in the growth of

critical-thinking skills as measured by the cri

terion instruments while controlling for teacher-

student verbal behavior?

3. To what extent do teacher-pupil interaction be

havior influence the development of critical-

thinking skills as measured by the criterion

instruments?

U. In what ways are the independent variables of

physics curriculum and verbal behavior related

to the dependent variable of growth in critical

thinking as measured by the criterion instru

ments ?

5. What is the relationship between teacher-pupil

interaction behavior and growth in critical-

thinking skills as determined by the criterion

instruments?

6. What differences exist between the verbal be

havior of those teachers whose students gain

the most and that of those teachers whose stu

dents gain the least in critical-thinking abil

ity as measured by the criterion instruments?

7. How may a defensible paper-pencil test of


36critical-thinking ability be constructed using

physical science content?

Definitions

PSSC physics students and teachers are those physics

students and teachers included in this study who use the

textbook and program of the PSSC physics curriculum.

Similarly, non-PSSC physics students and teachers are

those physics students and teachers included in the study

who do not use the textbook or program of the PSSC physics

curriculum. Teachers and students using the Harvard

Project Physics curriculum were excluded from both cate

gories because of insufficient numbers.

Critical-thinking skills refer to those skills and

abilities delineated in the first chapter. It is recog

nized that other terms are used more or less synonymously

with critical thinking. However, in this study critical

thinking is assumed to include the implications of these

other terms. In addition, critical thinking is viewed as

a matrix, rather than a sequence, of those activities

which result in independent and effective thinking.

Growth in critical thinking is the algebraic differ

ence between the post- and pre-test scores of students as

measured by the criterion instruments used in this study.

Criterion instruments of critical thinking are the


37

WatBon-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Form ZM and

the writer's A Teat of Critical Thinking Ability in

Physical Science. Form Z .

WGCTA refers to the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking

Appraisal. Form ZM.

TOUS refers to the Test on Understanding Science.

Population

It was necessary to restrict the size and geographic

location of the sample in this study because visits were

required to each school in the sample to obtain teacher-

student verbal interaction data. Therefore, it was de

cided to limit the study to public high schools within a

100-mile radius of Kalamazoo and within the State of

Michigan. A population of 180 public high schools are

located in this region of southwestern Michigan.

A questionnaire was mailed to each publie high-school

physics teacher in this area to obtain current enrollment

figures, teacher and school data, and physics program

characteristics. This questionnaire and a letter explain

ing its purpose were mailed the last week of February

1969. Also included were a self-addressed, postage-paid

return envelope and a cover letter designed to introduce

the investigator and the study by Dr. George G. Mallinson,

Dean, School of Graduate Studies, Western Michigan


38University. Copies of the questionnaire and accompanying

letters are included in Appendix A.

Each letter was addressed to the "Physics Teacher"

unless a name vas available, in vhich case, the letters

were addressed personally. Approximately, forty-five

per cent of the teacher's names were available from a

list compiled by the Physics Department at Western

Michigan University. Sixty-seven per cent or 120 re

plies were returned within two weeks and a second mail

ing was sent to selected teachers who did not reply ini

tially. Twenty-seven additional replies were obtained

for a total response of over 82 per cent. Since over

half of the non-responding teachers were from small high

schools which either do not offer physics or offer it in

alternate years, the response was considered adequate

and additional follow-up techniques were not used.

The data on the returned questionnaires were used

to summarize the enrollments and characteristics of the

schools, physics teachers, and physics programs of the

population. Among the characteristics considered were

school and senior class size, teacher's physics teaching

experience, teacher's experience in National Science

Foundation (NSF) Institutes, teacher's non-NSF supported

academic experiences of the past five years, teacher's

background preparation in physics, physics textbook used


in the school, and average number of physics laboratory

periods conducted per week. This information and physics

enrollment data are summarized in Table I and were sub

sequently used to select a sample.

The Sample

The sample consists of those high schools and phy

sics teachers selected who agreed to participate in the

study. The nature of the research demanded that the

sample satisfy certain conditions. These conditions were

1. The participating teachers must be willing to

take part in the study; they should not feel

uncomfortable about the observer's presence in

the classroom; they should have confidence in

the observer's professional ethics; and they

should teach "the way they ordinarily do."

2. The administrators and supervisors must be

satisfied with the arrangements and be willing

to make student permanent records available to

the investigator.

3. Teachers must agree to administer two tests of

critical-thinking skills on a pre- and post

test basis and therefore give up four class

periods in one of their physics classes.

1*. Schools must be located in a geographically


Uo

TABLE ISUMMARY OF SELECTED PHYSICS TEACHER CHARACTERISTICS AND

PHYSICS PROGRAMS FOR THE SCHOOL POPULATION

The following data and percentages are based on the ll<7 returns (82$) of the 180 questionnaires mailed to all public high-school physics teachers in southwestern Michigan

Schools Offering Physics Number Per Cent

Yearly 131 90Alternate Years 12 8Never 2 2

Senior Class Size (school enrollment/number of classes)

Less than 100 32 22100 - 299 87 60300 - k99 16 11500 - 699 7 5Greater than 700 3 2

Physics Teacher's Physics Teaching Experience

Less than 2 years 35 2k2 - 5 years U3 306 - 1 0 years 31 2111 - 20 years 2k 17Greater than 20 years 12 8

Teacher's National Science Foundation (NSF) Physics Experiences

Attended at least one NSFSummer Institute 55 38

Attended at least one NSFInservice Institute 6 U

Attended at least one NSFAcademic Year Institute 1 1


Ul

TABLE I (continued)

Teacher's NSF Physics HumberExperiences

Never attended a NSFsponsered Institute 83

Teacher's Non-NSF Academic Experience

Teachers taking a coursefor academic credit in thepast 5 years (non-NSF course) 90

Teachers not taking a coursefor academic credit in thepast 5 years (non-NSF course) 55

Teacher's Preparation in Physics

Physics major or equivalent kjPhysics minor or equivalent 5^

Neither major nor minor in Physics

Masters Degree in Physics kTextbooks Used in Physics Programs

Modern Physics. Williams et al. or Dull et al. 69

PSSC t The Committee 31

Elements of Physics. Boylan 9

Physics . Taffel 7

Physics: Fundamentals andFrontiers . Stollberg and Hill 7

Physics. An Exact Science,White 7

Per Cent

57

62

38

32

37

31

3

U82165

5

5


1*2

TABLE I (continued)

Textbooks Used in Physics NumberPrograms

Others. Includes 3 schoolsusing Harvard Project Physics 15

Number of Laboratories Conducted Per Week (Average)

None 12Less than 1 per month 10Less than 1 per two weeks 21LesB than 1 per week 28About 1 per week 1*5About 2 per week 29

Per Cent

10

88

ll*19 3120


U3convenient arrangement in order to allow the

researcher to visit a minimum of 2 schools per

day.

In view of these conditions and the overall design

of the study, a random sampling of teachers and schools

might not he feasible. Therefore, the following speci

fic criteria were used to select the teachers and schools

invited to cooperate in the investigation.

1. Each teacher must have a minimum of 2 previous

years of physics teaching experience to help

insure that his teaching style was stabilized.

2. Each physics class must have a projected minimum

enrollment of 12 students.

3. One-half of the sample must teach a PSSC physics

course and the other half a non-PSSC physics

course (not including Harvard Project Physics).

U. Physics teachers must have a physics minor or

its equivalent (2U hours) in order to insure a

minimum level of academic preparation in physics.

5. The physics class must not be taught by a stu

dent or intern teacher during the 1969-70 school

year.

6. The communities from which physics classrooms

are selected must represent a cross-section of

different community sizes, school sizes, and


uu

socio-economic ‘backgrounds.

In addition, the following criteria were used if further

selection were necessary:

1. The school should be located so that the re

searcher could visit several schools per day.

2. The teacher’s schedule should include more than

one physics class so that more flexibility is

available in scheduling visits.

On the basis of these criteria and the information

collected in the questionnaire, 30 physics teachers were

selected as the initial sample, with the hope of retain

ing 2k of these in the final sample.

With the preliminary selection procedures completed,

a letter was sent to the 7* incipal of each school, briefly

describing the study and requesting permission to contact

his physics teacher with a similar letter. A postcard

was included with the principal's letter on which he

could indicate his tentative approval or disapproval and

the physics teacher's name. Thirty letters were sent

out and twenty-seven affirmative replies were received

together with one negative reply and two replies indi

cating that the physics teacher was either -retiring or

changing positions. The initial affirmative response of

twenty-seven proved to be adequate and additional invita

tions were unnecessary.


U5Upon receipt of an affirmative reply, a descriptive

letter was sent to the physics teacher indicating a de

sire to meet with him and his principal at a later date.

Copies of these letters and a cover letter introducing

the investigator by Dr. George G. Mallinson are included

in Appendix B.

Approximately a week after sending the letter to

the teacher, a person-to-person telephone call was placed

to each principal requesting a meeting with him and his

physics teacher to discuss the study and request their

cooperation in the investigation. As a result of these

telephone calls, meetings were scheduled with each of the

twenty-seven principals and teachers during the first

three weeks of April 1969.

During these meetings, a copy of the paper "Descrip

tion of the Study" was given to each person present. A

copy of this paper is included in Appendix C. In this

meeting, the basic design of the study was explained,

questions were answered, misconceptions were clarified,

and an explanation of the responsibilities of the school,

teacher, and investigator were reviewed. In addition,

the investigator visited with the physics teacher and

principal in order to become better acquainted with the

school personnel and facilities.

As a result of this selection procedure, all


U6

twenty-seven schools visited were requested to partici

pate in the study. Twenty-seven affirmative replies

were received and these teachers and their physics

classes constitute the sample. Three of the schools

were teaching two different types of physics courses.

The types are probably best described as a college-

preparatory physics course and a general physics course.

The former is intended for those students interested in

continuing their education in science or engineering

and the latter for those students who are also continu

ing their education, but not in the scientific fields.

In each of these cases, it was decided to include both

types of classes in the study. Therefore, the sample

consists of 27 different schools and teachers, but 30

different physics classes.

In addition to the data collected for selecting the

sample, Tables II, III, and IV contain additional infor

mation that describes the schools, teachers, and physics

classes in the sample. Data in the tables apply at the

beginning of the 1969-70 school year.

After the list of participating schools was final

ized, the investigator made two additional efforts to

establish rapport with the participating schools and

teachers. First, each teacher was visited in May 1969

to observe a physics class. A secondary purpose of this


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further

reproduction prohibited

without

permission.

TABLE IID A TA C O N C ER N IN G SAM PLE SCHOOLS AND P H Y S IC S C LA S S E S

SchoolCode

TotalEnrollment

Number of Grades

Number of Physics Classes

Total Physics Enrollments Type of CommunityMale Female

01 1650 1* 3 59 15 Suburban02 1000 3 2 30 13 Suburban03 390 1* 1 13 7 RuralOU 862 3 2 38 10 Small Urban05 1100 1* 2 1*3 10 Suburban06 '550 1* 1 12 5 Suburban07 1500 1* 3 1*6 11 Small Urban08 680 3 1 18 6 Suburban09 1220 1* 1 21 1* Rural/Small Urban10 625 1* 2 29 12 Urban/Suburban11 850 5 1 19 3 Rural/Small Urban12 700 1* 1 18 1* Suburban13a 1800 3 1 13 2 Intercity UrbanlU 1800 3 3 1*6 18 Intercity Urban15 800 1* 2 29 17 Rural/Small Urban16 11*00 3 3 53 16 Intercity Urban17 975 1* 1 18 3 Small Urban18 550 U 1 18 2 Rural19 1100 1* 3 37 19 Small Urban20b 700 1* 1 9 2 Suburban21b 1150 I* 2 1*0 2 Bedroom/Urban22 1150 1* 2 28 8 Bedroom/Urban23 1100 3 2 27 8 Urban

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE II (continued)

SchoolCode

Total N Enrollment

umberGrades

Number of Physi

ClassTotal Physics Enrollments Type of

Communityes Male Female

2k 821 3 1 19 1 Urban/Suburban25 900 3 2 ^5 8 Rural/Small Urban26 850 k 1 22 2 Rural/Small Urban27 1000 k 2 20 7 Rural/Small Urban28 600 k 1 11 2 Suburban29c 1700 3 3 Ul 9 Suburban30 1700 3 2 28 11 Suburban

£Schools 13 and Ik are the same school and teacher; however t 13 is the collegepreparatory physics course and lH is the general physics course >

^Schools 21 and 22 are the same school and teacher; however, 21 is the generalphysics course and 22 is the college preparatory physics course.

CSchools 29 and 30 are the same school and teacher; however, 29 is the generalphysics course and 30 is the college preparatory physics course.

trCD

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE IIID A TA CO NCERNING THE TEAC H ER S IN THE SAM PLE

Teaching ExperienceTeacher This Physics NSF Physics AlsoCode Sex Age Physics School Total Background Experiences Teaches

01 M 3U 11 5 12 Major + 1 Summer Physical Science

02 M 36 10 7 11+ Maj or ++ 2 Summers Physical Science

03 M 29 6 1+ 6 Maj or None Mathematics Industrial Science

01* M 29 7 6 7 Maj or + 1 Summer Physical Science Earth Science

05 M 36 10 10 10 Major + 1 Summer Physical Science

06 M 33 11 7 12 Minor 2 Summers Chemistry Physical Science

07 M 28 5 3 5 Maj or None General Science

08 M 1*0 16 10 16 Maj or 1 Summer Mathematics Physical Science

09 M U5 16 1U 21 Maj or None Mathematics

10 M 30 7 7 8 Maj or 3 Summers Physical Science

11 F 30 2 2 5 10 Hours None Chemistry Physical Science

XTVO

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE III (continued)

Teaching ExperienceTeacher This Physi cs NSF Physics AlsoCode Sex Age Phys i cs School Total Background Experiences Teaches

12 M 1+2 5 20 20 Minor 1 Summer Chemistry General Science

13 4 lH M 6k 25 28 1+1 Major + 3 Summers Mathematics

15 M 3k 8 5 10 Maj or 1 Summer Chemistry

16 M 35 10 7 12 Major + None Chemistry

17 M 35 5 11 13 Minor None Mathematics

18 M U2 7 11 Minor 1 Summer Chemistry

19 M 1+8 20 13 20 Maj or 1 Summer Chemistry

20 M 28 6 6 6 Maj or None Physical Science Mathematics

21 & 22 M 3U 7 1+ 11 Maj or None Chemistry

23 M 27 6 2 6 Maj or 2 Summers Mathematics2k M 3l+ 10 10 10 Major ++ 2 Summers Mathematics

25 M 31 10 10 10 Maj or 2 Summers Chemistry

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE III (continued)

Teachi ng ExperienceTeacher This Physics NSF Physics AlsoCode Sex Age Physics School Total Background Experiences Teaches

26 M 52 19 13 19 Minor 2 Summers Chemistry

27 M 57 20 31 35 Maj or None Mathematics Physical Science

28 M 36 11 3 13 Maj or 1 Summer Chemistry General Science

29 & 30 M 37 It k U Major ++ 2 Summers None

vnI—1

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE IVD A TA C O NCERNING THE CLASSROOM OBSERVED

SchoolCode

Enrollment Aver age Age Hour Class Meets Physi cs TextbookMale Female Y ears Months

01 22 k 18 1 10: 35 - 11: 30 PSSC Physics The Committee

02 20 8 17 11 12:05 - 1: 00 PSSC Physics The Committee

03 13 7 17 11 10: it 5 - 12:00X PSSC Physics The Committee

OU 17 6 18 1 12:05 - 1:00 PSSC Physi cs The Committee

05 2k 5 17 6 12 :05 - 1:00 PSSC Physics The Committee

06 12 5 17 11 8:15 - 9:10 PSSC Physics The Committee

07 16 3 18 1 10:05 - 11:00 PSSC Physi cs The Committee


09 21 It 17 11 9:^5 - 10:55 PSSC Phys i c s The Committee10 21 5 18 l 1:05 - 2:00 PSSC Physics The Committee


12 18 It 17 10 10:05 - 11:00 PSSC Physics The Committee

\ j i

ro

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE IV (continued)

SchoolCode

Enrollment Averag e AgeMale Female Years Months

Hour Class Meets Physics Textbook

13a 13 2 17 11 11:U5 - 1:00 PSSC Physics, The Committee

iua 16 7 17 11 1:05 - 2:00 Modern Physics. Dull Williams et al.

or

15 11 3 18 2 1:25 - 2:20 Modern Physics. Dull Williams et al.

or

16 18 5 18 0 8:10 - 9:25X Modern Physics. Dull Williams et al.

or

17 18 3 18 1 12 :1+5 - l ;U0 Modern Physics, Dull Williams et al.

or


or


or

20 9 2 18 1 1:00 - 1:55 Modern Physics, Dull Williams et al.

or

22 1 18 1 10:35 - 11:30 Modern Physics. Dull Williams et al.

or

VJIu>

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.


SchoolCode

Enrollment Average Age Hour Class MeetsMale Female Years Months Physics Textbook

22b 15 3 18 1 12:35 - 1:30 Foundations of Physics. Lehrman and Svartz

23 15 k 17 11 8:15 - 10:10y Foundations of Physics. Lehrman and Svartz

2k 19 1 18 0 12:1*5 - 1 : 1*0 Physics--Its Methods and Meanings. Taffel

25 19 U 18 3 1:20 - 2:15 Physics--Its Methods and Meanings. Taffel

26 22 2 17 6 2:35 - 3:30 Concepts in Physics, Miller. Dillon, and Smith

27 10 1 18 2 1:35 - 2:30 Physics Fundamentals andFrontiers, Stollberg and Hill

28 11 2 17 10 9:50 - 10:U5 Elements of Physics, Boylan

29° 15 5 17 10 10:15 - 11:10 Elements of Physics, Boylan

30° 10 9 17 11 8:05 - 10:10y Physics, Genzer and Younger

VJl-p-

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.


Footnotes

£Schools 13 and lU are the same schools; however, 13 is the college preparatory

physics course and lU is the general physics course.

^Schools 21 and 22 are the same schools; however, 21 is the general physicscourse and 22 is the college preparatory physics course.

QSchools 29 and 30 are the same schools; however, 29 is the general physicscourse and 30 is the college preparatory phisics course.

Classes meet k days per week.y''Classes meet every other day for 2 hours at a time.

56

viBit was to allow the teacher to become acclimated to

an observer in the classroom. During these visits, an

effort was made to minimize the threat attached to

classroom observation. Whenever possible, the observer

talked informally with the teacher after class and an

swered any questions as well as commenting positively

on some aspect of the classroom or teaching process.

Secondly, a series of letters was sent to the teachers

in order to maintain communications and apprise them of

the progress of the study.

Procedures

During the first week of September 1969, a letter

was sent to each participating physics teacher requesting

his schedule for the 1969-70 school year and enrollment

data for his physics classes. On the basis of this in

formation, schedules were developed for visiting physics

teachers ana their classrooms. An average of 3 visits

per day for observation was possible and each school

could be visited once in each two-week cycle.

Initial visits were made during the second and third

weeks of September 1969, during which time pre-test

materials were distributed. The tests employed, which

are described in more detail in Chapter III, were the

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Form ZM and


57the author's A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in

Physical Science, Form Z . The tests were administered

by the teachers at times judged to be appropriate to all

their physics students. All students were tested during

the third and fourth weeks of September 1969.

Since uniformity in administering the tests was es

sential, an instruction sheet accompanied each set of

tests indicating that the teacher should read the in

structions verbatim to the students prior to taking each

test. Copies of the instructions are included in Appen

dix D. It was hoped that this procedure would result in

each student in the sample receiving the sctme information

about the test.

All responses were recorded on IBM 1230 answer sheets

and scored by the Testing Services of Western Michigan

University. Subsequent scores were rostered and punched

on Hollerith cards and all analyses and feedback data

were made from the cards.

The collection of verbal interaction data occurred

between October 1969 and April 1970 and involved more

than 1*00 hours of direct classroom observation. The in

strument used to collect teacher-student verbal inter

action data was a modification of the Flanders Interac

tion Analysis System (Flanders, 1965). This system is

designed to measure classroom interaction related to

*


58classroom climate and Chapter III is devoted to a more

complete description of the system and its use.

Preliminary planning and research findings (Flanders,

1965) indicated that a minimum of 200 minutes of verbal

interaction are necessary to obtain a stabilized matrix

profile for a teacher and an adequate sample of his

classroom behavior. Assuming Uo minutes of verbal inter

action per visit, a minimum of 5 periods of observation

and data gathering were needed to obtain the data. Addi

tional considerations, however, such as preliminary non

data gathering visits, an unannounced random visitation

policy, and unanticipated problems made it necessary to

plan a minimum of 10 visits to each class.

With these factors in mind, schools were selected

geographically so that a minimum of two schools could be

visited on a trip to an area. Since each school was

visited on a trip to an area, the visits to an individual

school were not random. However, visits to each school

were unannounced and did not follow a schedule or pattern

so that teachers could anticipate a visit. It was thought

that this enhanced the possibility of observing the

teacher under circumstances as normal as possible and

also prevented the teacher from preparing a special pre

sentation for the observer's benefit.

Because the presence of an observer in the classroom


59may cause unwanted, anxieties or apprehensions on the

part of the teacher, data were not collected during the

first two and in some cases the third or fourth obser

vational visits, although the usual observational pro

cedures were followed. Research (Sampf, 19o8) indicates

that this technique can reduce unwanted fears and mis

givings of teachers who are being observed in classroom

situations. It was thought that this technique would

improve the validity of the observational data and help

to improve rapport by allowing the observational process

to be as neutral as possible. Chapter III discusses

this point more fully in the section, "Observer Effect

in the Classroom."

Prior to each classroom visit, the investigator

checked in at the high-school office and then went to

the physics classroom. An effort was made to arrive be

fore the class began in order to chat informally with

the physics teacher. Before class began, the observer

selected a position from which he could observe the en

tire classroom and yet remain inconspicuous. During

class, the observer collected data by using the verbal-

interaction method of categorization. During class, the

observer remained seated and attempted to become a non

influencing factor in the classroom. Laboratory periods

were exceptions in that the investigator moved about the


60room. Otherwise, the investigator made every effort to

become "a piece of the furniture" and not a part of the

class or classroom conversation. No attempts were made

to disguise the observational or data-gathering process

from either the teacher or students. All inquiries were

answered honestly and in as much detail as appropriate.

After class, the observer thanked the teacher and often

talked with him over a cup of coffee. On an average,

three classrooms were observed each day during the ob

servational phase of the study.

Final visits to each class were made during the last

week of April and the first week of May 1970. During

these visits, the post-test materials were distributed

and times were arranged with the participating teachers

for administering the tests. The tests were the same as

those used earlier in the pre-test and the same testing

procedures were followed. Every student was tested

during the first two weeks of May 1970. Once again, IBM

1230 answer sheets were used and scoring was executed by

the Testing Services of Western Michigan University.

Subsequent scores were punched into Hollerith cards and

these cards were used for all analyses and feedback.


62double classification analysis of variance design was

used. In this way, the main and interacting effects

of the independent variables can be determined on the

dependent variable. This analysis involved data from

only those 30 physics classes for which observational

data were available. Thus, question 2 of this group

and question 1 of the previous group are similar, since

each measures the effectiveness of the contrasting

physics curricula; but, in addition, question 2 controls

for teacher-student verbal interaction behavior.

An ancillary part of the second group concerns

question 5. Comparisons were made between several

verbal interaction variables and the average growth in

critical-thinking skills using product-moment linear cor

relations. This comparison involved only those physics

classes for which observational data were available. The

purpose of these comparisons was to obtain answers to

questions regarding the extent and type of relationship

existing between growth in critical thinking and class

room verbal behavior.

The third part of the design dealt with the sixth

question. To answer that question, the 6 teachers whose

students demonstrated the largest and smallest growths

in critical thinking were compared in terms of their

classroom verbal behaviors. This was accomplished by


6l

Analysis and Statistical Techniques

A statistical analysis of the data was necessary

to determine if the findings were due to variance

caused by chance or to the different treatments. Since

this study was concerned with a number of questions, it

was necessary to use different techniques of analysis

to elicit answers to these questions. These techniques

included the "t" test, double classification analysis

of variance, and product-moment correlation (Spence

et al. , 1968).

The questions to which answers were sought are

listed in an earlier section of this chapter and fall in

four groups. The first group dealt with any differences

that might exist between PSSC and non-PSSC physics clas

ses on their growth in critical-thinking skills. A "t"

test was chosen as the statistical tool because addi

tional controls on the data were unavailable. It should

be noted that this comparison involved all 53 classrooms

for which critical thinking scores were available.

Questions 2, 3, and 4 were concerned with the main

and interacting effects of two independent variables on

the dependent variable of growth in critical thinking.

The independent variables were levels of teacher-student

verbal interaction and type of physics curricula, and a


double classification analysis of variance design was

used. In this way, the main and interacting effects

of the independent variables can be determined on the

dependent variable. This analysis involved data from

only those 30 physics classes for which observational

data were available. Thus, question 2 of this group and question 1 of the previous group are similar, since

each measures the effectiveness of the contrasting

physics curricula; but, in addition, question 2 controls

for teacher-student verbal interaction behavior.

An ancillary part of the second group concerns

question 5. Comparisons were made between several

verbal interaction variables and the average growth in

critical-thinking skills using product-moment linear cor

relations. This comparison involved only those physics

classes for which observational data were available. Th

purpose of these comparisons was to obtain answers to

questions regarding the extent and type of relationship

existing between growth in critical thinking and class

room verbal behavior.

The third part of the design dealt with the sixth

question. To answer that question, the 6 teachers whose

students demonstrated the largest and smallest growths

in critical thinking were compared in terms of their

classroom verbal behaviors. This was accomplished by


comparing verbal interaction variables defined in terms

of the interaction matrices for the 2 groups of teachers. A "t" test was used to test the significance of the dif

ference between the mean percentages of time spent in

various categories and verbal patterns. Hopefully, the

analysis would identify those aspects of classroom verbal

behavior which enhance growth in critical-thinking skills

in the physics classroom.

The last question dealt with the use of the instru

ment, A Test of Critical Thinking in Physical Science,

Form Z developed for use in this study. The aim was to

determine if it was possible to construct an effective

critical thinking test using a paper-pencil format and

physical science content. To answer this question, item

difficulty and discrimination coefficients were calcu

lated and reliability measures were determined for the

test. In addition, correlations were computed between

the scores of this test and the scores of the Watson-

Glaser Test to determine if they are measuring the same

or similar abilities.


CHAPTER III

OBSERVATIONAL AND CRITICAL THINKING INSTRUMENTS EMPLOYED IN THE STUDY

Introduction

An analysis of the literature of education indi

cates that much research has been undertaken concerning

teacher effectiveness. The research has dealt with

general teaching effectiveness as well as with that in

the content fields including science. Hurd's (193U)

studies in physics teaching are typical of some of the

early efforts. These efforts, however, have failed to

reveal a single factor or group of interacting factors

that is a unilateral condition of teacher effectiveness.

Also, few of the studies produced consequential findings

One may suggest that the variables examined, such as the

teacher's academic preparation, teaching experience, and

socio-economic background are not consequential and that

the ones that are have yet to be identified. A recent

review of research (Biddle, 196k) concerning teacher ef

fectiveness summarizes the situation as follows:

"Considering the probably complex relationships among teacher behavior, criterion tasks, and contextual variables, it is likely that competence is a cluster of unrelated abilities. Any one of these may be inappropriate to some contexts. For example

6h


65some teachers may he inspirational leaders, others warm counselors, and still others walking encyclopedias. In certain of these contexts, each of these competences may he highly effective, in others each might have little or a negative effect.”

Recently, however, educators have sought to develop

a basic theory of instruction. This development has

involved the use of new techniques of systematic class

room observation. These techniques appear promising

since they quantify the teaching process and measure the

verbal aspects of teaching.

Two basic observational techniques are used depend

ing on how the data are to be collected and interpreted.

The first deals with the logical and cognitive nature of

the verbal behavior in the classroom. This technique

was first used in the work of Aschner (1963), Bellack

and Davitz (1963), and Smith (1959). The second deals

with the type of interaction related to what has been

called "classroom climate." Flanders (1965), whose work

typifies the latter technique, defines "classroom

climate" as "generalized attitudes toward the teacher

and the class that pupils share in common despite indi

vidual differences."

Flanders, whose work was influenced by the classic

studies of classroom climate by Lewin, Lippit, and

White (1939) and Withall (1951), classifies all class

room verbal interaction into 10 mutually exclusive and


66exhaustive categories. These categories and their des

criptions are summarized in Table V. These categories

are used by classroom observers who record the type of

interaction occurring within a specified time interval

by writing down the number corresponding to the category

exhibited during that interval.

Flanders attempted to increase the objectivity of

the term "classroom climate" by using the words "direct"

and "indirect" to describe contrasting teacher influ

ences. He defines an "indirect teacher" as one who ac

cepts student feelings, praises students, accepts stu

dents' ideas, or asks questions of students. A direct

teacher is one who lectures, gives directions, criti

cizes students, or Justifies his own authority. Stated

differently, an indirect teacher is one who maximises

his students' potential for participating actively in

the learning process whereas a direct teacher minimizes

this potential.

The interaction-analysis method seems suitable for

the analysis of factors of verbal behavior related to

the development of critical-thinking skills. Authors of

the Harvard Project Physics (1968) state:

" . . . the most important element in the learning process is, after all, the interaction between student and teacher. . . . "

Similarly, Pauli (i960) describes the teaching of


67

TABLE VSUMMARY OF FLANDER'S CATEGORIES FOR CLASSIFYING VERBAL INTERACTION IN

THE CLASSROOM

woS5W3FtI*.53MEhOwaMQaM

1. ACCEPTS FEELING; accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a nonthreatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recallingfeelings is included.

2. PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES: praises or encourages student action or behavior. Jokes that release tension, but not at the expense of another individual; nodding head, or saying "urn hm?" or "go on" are included.

3. ACCEPTS OR USES IDEAS OF STUDENTS: clar'i- fying, building, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to Category 5.

hP<EHaWao<wEh Woawaaa.a

EHOwaMQ

ASKS QUESTIONS; ashing a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer.

5. LECTURING: giving facts or opinions about content or procedures; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions.

6. GIVING DIRECTIONS: directions, commands,or orders with which a student is expected to comply.

7. CRITICIZING OR JUSTIFYING AUTHORITY: statements intended to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable patterns;bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference.


68

TABLE V (continued)

8. STUDENT TALK - RESPONSE

<EHEHBWQS3EHCO

in response to the contact or

teacher. solicits

talk by students Teacher initiates

student statement.

9. STUDENT TALK - INITIATIONdents, which they initiate on" student is only to talk next, observer must student wanted to talk, this category.

talk by stu- If "calling

indicate who may decide whether If he did, use

10. SILENCE OR CONFUSION: pauses, shortperiods of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.

Note : Each number lar kind of down during position on

There is NO scale implied by these numbers, is classificatory; it designates a particu- communication event. To write these numbers observation is to enumerate— not to judge a a scale.


69problem-solving as follows:

"When the student is taught how a particular problem is solved, he learns how others have solved the problem. The skill of the teacher in that case determines hov much problem-solving takesplace in the mind of the student and how muchtakes place in the mind of the teacher. The latter may take a flying trip with the student to reach the destination; or he may lead the student by the hand, pointing out the interesting and important landmarks along the way, the bridges that link vital centers, and the foundations on which the connecting links rest."

Pankratz (1966) studied the relationship of various

verbal behavior variables to teacher effectiveness. He

used Hough's (1967) modification of Flanders' System of

Interaction Analysis to measure the verbal behavior of

physics teachers. To measure teacher effectiveness he

employed a composite of three factors assumed to be im

portant for teaching success. These three factors were

the principal's perception of the teacher, the students'

perception of the teacher's general teaching ability, and

the ability of the teacher to react to classroom situa

tions in accord with educational theory. Thirty physics

teachers and their classes were selected and tested. The

five teachers who rated highest and lowest on the criter

ion instruments were selected and observed by direct

classroom observation.

Using this design, Pankratz concluded that (l) the

teacher's use of certain categories of verbal behavior

was significantly related to teacher effectiveness,


(2) teachers in the high sample employed significantly

more indirect influence, more sustained use of student

ideas, and more lengthy responses to student questions,

(3) there was evidence of different kinds of questions

used as well as different patterns in which questions

were stated by the two samples, and (4) influence pat

terns soliciting student's responses and influence pat

terns following student responses differed for the two

samples.

In summary, there appears to be a relationship be

tween teacher-pupil verbal interaction variables and

teacher effectiveness. Since this study is designed to

investigate those verbal behaviors or patterns that en

hance critical thinking in the physics classroom as well

as the effectiveness of the PSSC and non-PSSC physics

curricula in developing these skills, interaction analy

sis appears to be an appropriate technique.

The Observational Instrument

The purposes of this section are to (l) describe

the interaction analysis system employed, (2) state the

ground rules for using this system, (3) describe he

verbal interaction matrices and variables involved, (4)

discuss the observer's effect in the classroom, and (5)

report observer reliability.


71The Interaction-Analysis System

The verbal-interaction instrument used in this study

is a modification of the Flanders Interaction Analysis

System (1965). This modification was designed to make

more specific some of Flanders* categories and to in

crease the amount of data available for analysis. The

changes include combining Flanders' categories one and

three, expanding the question category for both teachers

and students, expanding the lecture category, adding a

category on corrective feedback, and expanding the last

inclusive category to include both functional and non

functional non-verbal behavior. Table VI indicates the

specific categories in this modification and summarizes

their interpretation.

The categories summarized in Table VI can be divided

into those of teacher talk (categories 1 to 10), student

talk (categories 11 to lU), and silence and irrelevant

behavior (categories 15 and 16). The teacher talk cate

gories may be further subdivided into those statements

that are classified as direct (categories 5 to 10) and

indirect (categories 1 to U). Direct influence by the

teacher minimizes the freedom of the student to respond

or participate actively in the teaching-learning process,

while indirect influence maximizes this freedom. The

choice of the teacher to use direct or indirect behavior


72

TABLE VISUMMARY OF INTERACTION CATEGORIES

USED IN THIS STUDY

Wo65

us W►J< ►hE-t |X|

55K MW« EHU O< Ww KEH H

QaM

1. ACCEPTS FEELING; Accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a nonthreatening manner. Feelings may he positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included. ACCEPTS OR USES IDEAS OF STUDENTS: Clarifying, building,or developing ideas suggested by a student.

2. PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES; Praises or encourages student action or behavior. Jokes that release tension, but not at the expense of another; nodding head or saying "urn hm" or "go on" are included. Praise and encouragement are often single words and repetition of a student’s answer can be praise if it communicates praise for a correct answer.

3. COGNITIVE MEMORY AND CONVERGENT THINKING QUESTIONS: Cognitive memory questions represent the simple reproduction of facts, formulae, or other items of remembered content through use of such processes as recognition, rote memory and recall. Convergent thinking represents the analysis and integration of given or remembered data.It leads to one expected end-result because of the tightly structured framework through which the individual must respond.

^ • DIVERGENT THINKING AND EVALUATIVE THINKING QUESTIONS: Divergent questions representintellectual operations wherein the individual is free to generate independently his own data within a data-poor situation or to take a new direction or perspective on a given topic. Evaluative questions deal with matters of Judgment, value, and choice. They are characterized by their Judgmental quality.


73

TABLE VI (continued)

5. LOW LEVEL LECTURE; No eye contact, gestures, voice lacks expression and speaker lacks involvement in his lecture. Often characterized hy reading from text or "talking at" the blackboard.

6. MEDIUM LEVEL LECTURE: Since we are lookingat lecture along a continuum, this is the category for all lecture which does not fit into the low or high level categories.This is the area between the two other defined extremes.

pao

Pd VSpa

<Ft ►a

pt<« vsW Hao E-*< Ow pa

«WQ

7. HIGH LEVEL LECTURE: Extensive eye contact,gestures, and the speaker is mobile. Voice is expressive and the involvement of the speaker in the lecturing act is obvious by his excitement with the content of his lecture and his desire to communicate not only the content but also the excitement.

8. GIVES DIRECTIONSorders to comply.

Directions, commands orwhich a student is expected to

9. CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: Telling a student heis incorrect vhen the incorrectness can be established by other than opinion (i.e., definition, empirical validation, or custom).

10. CRITICIZES OR JUSTIFIES AUTHORITY: Statements intended to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable patterns, bawling out, stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing, extreme self-reference. Jokes that are at the expense of another are included in this category.


7U


<EhEHsswQDEhCO

11. STUDENT TALK-RESPONSE: Talk by students inresponse to the teacher. The teacher initiates the contact or solicits the student’s response by use of questions or directions.

12. STUDENT TALK-INITIATED; Talk by students which they initiate. Talk by students in response to broad teacher questions (category #b) which require divergent or evaluative thinking are included. Unpredictable statements in response to the teacher and shifts from predictable to unpredictable statements must be closely observed.

13. COGNITIVE MEMORY AND CONVERGENT THINKING QUESTIONS: Defined in the same way as forteacher questions except that the student is constructing and asking the question.

lU. DIVERGENT THINKING AND EVALUATIVE THINKING QUESTIONS: Defined in the same way as forteacher questions except that the student is constructing and asking the questions.

15. FUNCTIONAL SILENCE. CONTEMPLATION. DEMONSTRATION. OR DIRECTED ACTIVITY: Silence following questions, periods of silence interspersed with teacher talk or student talk intended for the purpose of thinking. Includes non-verbal behavior requested by the teacher, silence during audio-visual work (movies excluded), teacher demonstrations, or periods of directed study involving the teacher working with individuals or small groups.

16. CONFUSION AND IRRELEVANT BEHAVIOR; Periods of confusion and noise such that the person speaking cannot be understood or periods of silence that have no purpose in the classroom. Also includes verbal behavior or silence not covered by the other categories.


75


Note: Each number lar kind of down during position on

There is NO scale implied by these numbers, is classificatory; it designates a particu- communication event. To vrite these numbers observation is to enumerate— not to Judge a a scale.


76may be conscious or unconscious and depends on many

factors including the teacher's perception of the situ

ation and the goals of the lesson. All categories are

designed to be mutually exclusive and at the same time

inclusive of all types of classroom verbal interaction.

Listed below are the complete definitions for the

sixteen categories of the Interaction Analysis System

used in this study.

TEACHER STATEMENTS

Indirect Teacher Verbal Influence

1. ACCEPTING AND USING STUDENT IDEAS OR FEELINGS:The teacher accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative and may include predicting or recalling feelings. In the physics classroom, practically all elements in this category are connected with feelings of failure or success in problem-solving.Accepting or using student ideas includes clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by students. This can be done in many ways, but common methods include repeating, restating, or rephrasing a student answer or idea.

2. TEACHER PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES: The teacherpraiseB or encourages student action or behavior. Included are Jokes that release tension and simple phrases such as "um hm" and "go on." Teacher-provided clues and hints are also included if they are designed to encourage a student response. Praise and encouragement are often single words and in a physics classroom are usually connected with subject-matter items, such as a unique solution or insight into a problem.


773 & U. TEACHER QUESTIONS: These categories refer

to all teacher questions concerning content or procedure to which an answer is required. Rhetorical questions that do not require an answer are not included. The division of this category into the different levels of questions is based upon the work of Gallagher and Aschner (1963).

3. COGNITIVE MEMORY AMD CONVERGENT THINKING QUESTIONS ; Cognitive memory questions represent the simple reproduction of facts, formulae, or other items of remembered content by processes of recognition, rote memory, and recall. Cognitive memory questions do not require the student to integrate or associate facts and are handled by reference to the memory bank. Convergent thinking questions require the analysis and integration of data that are given or are recalled. They may involve solving a problem, summarizing material, or establishing a logical sequence of ideas. They are characterized by a tight structure that can lead to only one expected end result. Thus, the answer is predictable and the framework of thinking followed is rigid.

U. DIVERGENT THINKING AND EVALUATIVE THINKINGQUESTIONS: Divergent questions represent intellectual operations wherein the individual is free to generate independently his own data within a data-poor situation or take a new direction or perspective on a given topic. Divergent questions reveal the student's ability to extrapolate from established facts and uncover unique associations or implications. These types of questions are often followed by unpredictable answers.Evaluative questions deal with matters of judgment, values, or choice and are characterized by their judgmental quality. They may also call for speculation, assessment or a guess.In general, this category is non-restrictive and allows the student to expand his thinking.


78

Direct Teacher Verbal Influence

5, 6, & 7. LECTURE; The teacher gives facts, information, or opinions concerning sub

ject-matter content or procedures. The category may include expressions regarding ones own ideas and the use of rhetorical questions. It is subdivided into three levels based on the dynamism of the lecturer.

5. LOW-LEVEL LECTURE; This type of lecture is characterized by the speaker's use of little or no eye contact, gestures, or flexibility.The voice is typically non-expresaive and the speaker often appears uninterested in his lecture.This is an extreme of lecturing that is perhaps best characterized by a teacher who does little more than read notes or "talk to the blackboard." It is defined in terms of the speaking and physical characteristics of the lecturer. A corollary to this behavior iB a noticeable lack of student involvement during the lecturing process.

6. MEDIUM-LEVEL LECTURE: This category is definedby categories 5 and 7. Since lecture is being examined on a continuum, this is the category that falls betveen the other two extremes on the dynamism scale. This is the category into which most lecture falls.

7. HIGH-LEVEL LECTURE: This type of lecture is characterized by the speaker's extensive use of eye contact, gestures, and lecturing flexibility. The speaker's voice is expressive and the involvement of the speaker in the lecturing act is obvious by his excitement and his desire to communicate not only the content but also the excitement. This is an extreme of the lecturing process and is reflected in the speaking and physical characteristics of the lecturer.A corollary to this behavior is a high degree of student participation during the lecture.

8. TEACHER GIVES DIRECTIOMS: Teacher directions,commands, or orders to a student to which compliance is expected. Classroom management techniques and assignments are typical of this


79category. A rule of thumb to follow is that an act of compliance or rebellion on the part of the student following this type of statement may be expected.

9. CORRECTIVE FEEDBACK: Teacher statements thatinform a student whether his answer or statement is correct. The extent to which his statement is incorrect must be based on factors other than teacher opinion or Judgment. For example, authority, definition, custom, or empirical validation may be the reason for correction. Remarks of this type tend to be impersonal and are usually restricted to cognitive or skill areas.

10. TEACHER CRITICIZES OR JUSTIFIES AUTHORITY: These statements are intended to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable patterns. Examples include criticism, teacher justifying his decision, extreme selfreference, or disciplining a student. Jokes that are at the expense of another and corrective feedback based exclusively on teacher opinion are included. Vocal intonations and statement content are effective clues for the observer.

STUDENT STATEMENTS

11. STUDENT TALK-RESPONSE: These are student statements made in response to the teacher. Usually the teacher initiates this response by a question or direction. Clues for distinguishing this category from the next are teacher-imposed limitations, predictability of student's response, and amount of student initiative involved. Incorrect responses are also included.

12. STUDENT TALK-INITIATED: These are student statements initiated by the student. Student- to-student statements are also placed here.The distinguishing characteristic of this category is the person who initiates the response. Clues include unpredictable responses, a raised hand in response to a question, emotional responses, and original ideas. Answers to high level, category k questions are usually included here.


8013 fc lU. STUDENT QUESTIONS; These categories

refer to all student questions, whether directed to the teacher or another student. The categories are defined in the same way as categories 3 and U except that the student formulates the question.

3.3. STUDENT COGNITIVE MEMORY AHD CONVERGENT THINKING QUESTIONS: Defined the same ascategory 3 except that the student formulates the question.

lfc. STUDENT DIVERGENT THINKING AND EVALUATIVE THINKING QUESTIONS: Defined the same ascategory U except that the student formulates the question.

NON-VERBAL, IRRELEVANT, AND INDISTINGUISHABLEBEHAVIOR

15. FUNCTIONAL SILENCE. CONTEMPLATION. DEMONSTRATION. OR DIRECTED ACTIVITY: This is functional and purposeful classroom behavior that describes activities in which the teacher and class do not interact verbally or where it is impossible to distinguish its nature. Behavior influenced by the teacher, such as demonstration, directed study, blackboard activities are included. This is not a disciplinary silence and frequently occurs after questions. The most important characteristic is its functional nature.

16. CONFUSION AND IRRELEVANT BEHAVIOR: This category includes periods of confusion or noiBe such that the person speaking cannot be understood. This includes non-functional classroom behaviors that are not related to learning or normal procedure. This category also includes irrelevant but orderly interaction that is unrelated to the subject at hand and all other interaction that does not fit elsewhere. The most important characteristic is its non-functional nature.


81

Ground Rules

Because of the large number of verbal patterns pos

sible vhen an observer is recording classroom interaction,

several rules have been established to improve reliabil

ity and to aid possible efforts at replication in the

future. Basically these ’’ground rules" aid the observer

in developing observational consistency and may also help

in recording some troublesome patterns or verbal habits

of certain teachers. Most of the following ground rules

were developed by Flanders (196U). Others were developed

by the author as guides when observational problems ap

peared.

COMMUNICATION NOT RECORDED

1. Irrelevant classroom discussion between students.

2. Any pre- or post-lesson activities such as attendance, announcements on the intercom, and voting in school activities not associated directly with the lesson. Major in-class breaks in interaction such as fire drills or interruptions by an administrator or teacher are also excluded. In these situations, the observer records two l6 's and then stops recording .

3. Teacher dictation of a class quiz or test.

COMMUNICATION RECORDED

Basic Ground Rules

1. If the primary tone of the teacher's behavior has been consistent, do not shift into another


82category (especially if not radically different) unless a clear indication of the shift is evidenced by the teacher.

2. Record a category number every 3 seconds unless the teacher changes categories, in vhich case the change is recorded and everything proceeds as before.

3. Record a 16 at the beginning and end of all communication records.

Teacher Poses Problem or Situation

1. A problem posed as a declarative statement (Example: Determine index of refraction.) iscategorized as 3 or Specific directionsduring the posing of questions are categorized as 8.

2. All teacher-posed problems that students are given a chance to answer (a pause or take-home problem) are 3's or U's. Problems that the teacher poses and proceeds to answer without a pause are 5, 6 , or 7's. This can also include situations posed by the teacher such as "Are there any questions?."

3. All "open-ended questions" and questions "to think about" are categorized as U's.

Teacher-Student Interaction

1. If, after a teacher question, the student does not respond and the teacher gives a cue, the cue is considered as encouragement. Therefore, a 3 or U, 15 . . . , is recorded.

2. If student responds with a correct answer, but not what the teacher expects and then the teacher says, "Yes, but . . . " and then cues, this is recorded as 3 or U, 11 or 12, 1 , 9,2 ... .

3. If the teacher repeats a student answer and the tone indicates acceptance, a 1 is appropriate. If it is strictly a rhetorical device, the 1 is not appropriate and the category depends on previous communication.


83

Teacher Verbal Habit of "Right?" or "Okay?"

1. "Right?" or "Okay?" following a teacher statement without a pause is a 5» 6 , or 7. However,a pause without an answer is coded 3 or U, 15,5 » 6 , or 7.

2. Teacher says "Right?" and student's respond "Yes." This is recorded as a 3 or U, 11. However, if student response is a question or something other than an affirmative response it is coded 12, 13, or lU depending upon the response.

Teacher Reads to Class

1. Teacher reads directions. Code is 8 ,

2. Teacher reads a problem and solves it completelyhimself without soliciting student response.Code is 5, 6 , or 7 depending upon the type of involvement.

Miscellaneous Ground Rules

1. When the teacher repeats a student idea and communicates only that the idea will be considered or accepted as something to be discussed, a 1 is used. If it is intended as praise a 2 is correct.

2. A teacher Joke that releases tension and is not at a student's expense is a 2. If it is at someone's expense, it is recorded as a 10.

3. If several students answer a question in unison, it is coded as an 11.

U. When, as a management technique, a teacher asksa question of a student who is obviously not paying attention, a 10 is a more appropriate classification than a 3 or a U.


8U

Verbal Interaction Matrices and Variables

In practice each of the verbal interaction categor

ies referred to in the previous sections is numbered as

indicated in Table VI. These numbers are for enumera

tion purposes only and are not a rating scale. In oper

ation, trained observers use the categories to collect

data concerning teacher-pupil classroom interactions.

This is accomplished by an observer in the classroom who

writes down sequentially, at about three-second inter

vals, the number of the category representing the type

of verbal communication occurring during that interval.

At the end of a period of observation, an observer has a

sequential list of numerals corresponding to the pre

defined categories. This list is transformed into a 16-

by-l6 matrix by pairing successive numbers and entering

each ordered pair into a matrix in which the row number

represents the first member of the pair and the column

number the second member (Amidon and Flanders, 1967).

Because of this pairing and tabulating technique, the

data collected relate to many more variables than the

original lb. In fact, a l6-by-l6 matrix provides hun

dreds of variables (all combinations of 16 items taken

one at a time). Obviously, many of these variables can

be eliminated as being redundant or of no value through


intuitive and logical considerations.

The pairing and tabulating technique is useful in

that it permits the researcher to determine patterns of

interaction, such as the type of talk that follows

other talk as well as the total amount of time spent in

interaction in various categories. This is accomplished

by an analysis of various areas or columns of the matrix.

For example, cells 1-1, 2-2 and others along the diagonal

of the matrix are called "steady state cells" because

they indicate an unchanging verbal behavior. In con

trast, non-diagonal cells are called "transitional cells"

because they indicate a transition from one category of

interaction to another. Certain transitional cells can

be of particular interest because they indicate how a

teacher follows-up or reinforces other behavior. In a

similar manner, other variables that are useful for

analysis and comparison, often designated as areas, can

be defined.

In the analysis of the l6-by-l6 matrix used in this

study, nine areas of interest may be considered from the

matrix. These areas are identified in Figure 1 and are

described as follows:

Area A contains all cases of extended indirectteacher influence. This includes all extended situations of teacher praise and acceptance as well as transitions from one indirect category to another.


Area B contains all cases of extended directteacher influence. This includes extended instances of direct influence and transitions from one category to another.

Area C contains all cases of student-talk following teacher-talk. Note that all of the cells in Area C are transitional cells.

Area D contains all cases of extended student talk. It also contains transitions from one student talk category to another.

Area E contains all cases of teacher-talk following student-talk. Note that all cells in this area are transition cells.

Area F contains all cases of functional silence following either teacher or student talk.All cells in this area are transitional cells and represent only the beginning of silence following talk.

Area G contains all cases of extended functional silence or directed activity.

Area H contains all cases of teacher or studenttalk following silence. Note that all cells in this area are transitional cells and indicate the initiation of talk following silence.

Area I contains all cases of extended non-functional silence and extended irrelevant behavior .

Other areas of interest are column totals or group

ings of columns. In this respect, total teacher-talk

(columns 1 to 10) and total student-talk (columns 11 to

lU) and their ratio are of interest. Others considered

are the I/D ratio and the i/d ratio. The I/D ratio is

the ratio of tallies in indirect teacher columns (l to k to those in direct teacher columns (5 to 10). Similarly


86

Figure 1l6-by-l6 Verbal Interaction Matrix

1 2 3 5 6 i 8 9 101112 13 lH 15 16

12 iI3 “7

h5 i*6 V*7 ■8 11 19

101112 1m 1I13 1 1JlU1516 1

t Tallies in columns 1 to Î/D Ratio * .. .. .. ..... .Tallies in columns 5 to 10

, / , „ Tallies in columns 1 to 3i/d Ratio » 1 1 " ■' — ■■■ --Tallies in columns 8 , 9, 10

Teacher-Talk Student-Talk Ratio =Tallies in columns 1 to 10 Tallies in columns 11 to lU


88

the i/d ratio is the ratio of total tallies in columns

1 to 3 to those in columns 8, 9, and 10. The former

ratio is used to index classroom climate, while the

latter is used to obtain a measure of the kind of em

phasis given to motivation and control in the classroom.

In summary, the matrix representation of the se

quential observations of classroom verbal interaction

allows a researcher to determine not only the amount of

various types of classroom verbal behavior, but also the

types of transitions that occur in verbal behavior.

Also, the matrix representation of teacher-pupil inter

action may be considered to be a profile of the communi

cation recurring in the classroom and useful for analysis.

Observer Effect in the Classroom

The effect of an observer in the classroom on the

verbal behavior of teachers concerns those who carry out

the observations. The use of observational systems by

researchers has resulted in the need for new ways of as

suring the reliability and validity of the data collected.

However, when confronted with the problem, researchers

and administrators seem to have done little about getting

such assurances. They typically assert that it is better

to have some information, even of doubtful validity,

about teacher-pupil interaction than to know nothing


89about the behavior (Medley and Mitzel, 1963). Many make

the tacit assumption that an observer's presence does

not affect teacher and student behavior. Evidence re

ported by Sampf (1968) and Mitzel and Rabinowitz (1953)

indicates that the assumption may be unwarranted. Sampf

recorded and analyzed the classroom interaction of ele

mentary teachers to determine if they behave differently

when observed than when not observed. He also attempted

to determine differences in behavior of teachers when

they are informed of an impending observation and when

they are not informed. He concluded that the presence

of an observer does influence the behavior of those

teachers being observed. In addition, the orientation

of this change is in the direction of more indirect be

havior .

Mitzel and Rabinowitz observed the same classroom

every Monday for eight weeks. The data for the first

four weeks were compared with those for the last four

weeks. Using Withall's Technique (Withall, 19^9)* they

found marked changes in the teacher's behavior between

the initial and final observation. The direction of

change was interpreted to provide evidence that the

teachers accommodate to the presence of observers over

a period of time.

Others do not believe that an observer exerts a


90signi ficant influence on the observed. Kerlinger (1965)

states this belief and points out that "a teacher cannot

do vhat she cannot do." He fails, however, to indicate

that "it is possible for a teacher not to do under di

rect observation what she can do when not under direct

observation" (Sampf, 1968). Flanders (Sampf, 1968) be

lieves that observers do cause some changes in classroom

interaction, but that the effect will be constant, minor,

or randomized over all observations.

In view of theBe conclusions and the rapport neces

sary to gather valid data, it was clear that the effect

of the observer on the teacher and students should be

minimized. To this end, three techniques recommended by

Flanders (1965) and Sampf (1968) were used. First,

several non-dala gathering visits were made to each

school and teacher in order to establish rapport and

lessen the threat often associated with direct observa

tion. One visit of this nature was made at the end of

the 1968-69 school year and at least two more at the

beginning of the 1969-70 school year. If serious doubts

still existed in the observer's mind about the teacher's

behavior, a third and occasionally a fourth non-data

visit were made to alleviate the anxiety. In addition,

several letters were sent to teachers, many cups of

coffee were consumed, and hours of conversation were


spent with teachers keeping them informed of the pro

gress of the study. Second, the teachers were apprised

honestly and accurately of all measurements and obser

vations occurring in their classrooms. In this respect,

an effort was made to volunteer information to a teacher

before he had a chance to question a procedure. Like

wise, all student or teacher questions were answered

promptly, accurately, and in as much detail as appro

priate. Third, all visits to the participating teachers

were made on an unannounced basis. Neither the teacher

nor any school official was informed of an impending

visit. The arrival of the observer at the beginning of

class was the only notice of an observation. It was

thought that this approach prevented a teacher from

preparing, consciously or unconsciously, for a visit.

Teachers were advised of this policy prior to the time

their cooperation was requested and their agreement with

the policy was unanimous.

Observer*s Reliability

One feature of category systems for measuring class

room interaction is that objective, quantitative infor

mation can be obtained. Even a well-developed system,

however, is no better than the reliability of the person

who is using it. The problem of observer reliability is


92two-fold. First, individuals must be trained to become

reliable observers; and second, they must maintain that

reliability over the data-collecting period. Since most

periods of observation last several weeks, it is usually

necessary to check reliability at regular intervals in

addition to an initial check prior to the collection of

dat a .

The problem of observer training is, in itself, a

major undertaking. However, this topic has been covered

extensively by Flanders (196U and 1965) and will not be

discussed in detail here. Suffice to say, an observer

must memorize each category and its description thor

oughly before spending practice time with a tape record

ing of classroom interactions. Then, additional practice

in "live" classrooms is essential. The ground rules des

cribed earlier are useful in dealing with troublesome

and unusual patterns of interaction behavior.

Reliability has a number of meanings. In inter

action analysis it usually refers to either inter- or

intra-observer reliability. Inter-observer reliability

exists when two or more observers in a given classroom

categorize the behavior the same way. Intra-observer

reliability exists when an observer agrees with himself

when using the technique. The former type of reliability

is particularly important for projects in which several


93observers are used while the latter is more important

where an interaction system is designed for use by one

person. In this investigation, the term "reliability"

refers to the latter type, intra-observer reliability.

A comparison of two records of the same inter

action may be accomplished by Scott's coefficient of

reliability described by Flanders (1967). This coef

ficient gives "the amount that two observations exceed

chance agreement divided by the amount that perfect

agreement exceeds chance." Scott called his coefficient

"pi" and it is determined by the application of the two

formulae below!

P - P0 ir o e1 - Pe

where Pq is the proportion of agreement and Pg is the

proportion of agreement expected by chance and is definedkas follows: _

Pe 3 I Pii-1

In this formula, k equals the number of categories and P^

is the proportion of tallies falling into each category.

In measuring intra-observer reliability, the comparison

of two observations is accomplished by audio- or video

taping the verbal behavior of a classroom while an obser

ver is recording the interaction directly. At a later

date, the observer records the same interaction from the


9**tape and the two records are compared.

To determine reliability, checks were made before

and during the collection of interaction data. A por

table Norelco cassette type recorder was used to record

approximately twenty-five minute segments of classroom

interaction while the investigator applied the inter

action system directly. About seventy—two hours later

the tape vas played back and analyzed and the two

records were compared using Scott's coefficient.

Table VII summarizes the results of reliability

checks before data were collected (October) and at the

beginning of each subsequent month of data collection.

This analysis yielded reliability coefficients ranging

from .75 to .89 with a median of .82. These coeffi

cients demonstrate that high intra-observer reliability

was achieved and indicate that the technique could be

used in this study.

The Critical-Thinking Instruments

Two tests designed to measure critical-thinking

skills were administered to all the physics students of

the twenty-Beven teachers comprising the sample. They

were the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Form

ZM and the author-constructed A Test of Critical Thinking

Ability in Physical Science. Form Z .


95

TABLE VIISUMMARY OF INTRA-OBSERVER RELIABILITY

COEFFICIENTS FOR THE INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

mm

Minutes of inter- Scott'sDate action recorded Coefficient

October 20 .8127 .8025 .7530 .79

November 30 .8325 .82

December 22 .89

January 25 .8U

February 32 .79

March 17 .8130 .83

April 30 .85

Mean 26 minutes Median .825


96The WGCTA contains 100 items involving statements,

arguments, and interpretations of data similar to those

a person might encounter in daily life, newspaper and

magazine articles, or discussions on various current

topics, These items are distributed in five subtests

designed to measure different, although interdependent,

aspects of critical thinking. The five subtests are

Inference (20 items), Recognition of Assumptions (16

items), Deduction (25 items), Interpretation (2k items),

and Evaluation of Arguments (15 items).

Form ZM of the WGCTA used in this study is the re

sult of over twenty-five years of effort to measure

critical-thinking abilities. As stated by the authors,

it "includes those tests and items found to be most

functional and significant and which appear to be measur

ing critical thinking as defined . . . ."

Normative data obtained from lk school systems in

13 states involving 20,312 students at the 9th, 10th,

11th, and 12th grade levels are available. Reliability

coefficients based on the split-half method range from

.77 to .83 with a median of .80. An item-analysis based

on a representative sample of the normative population

indicated a median item difficulty of .61 and a median

item discrimination of .29. Studies of validity are

based mainly on "face validity" which is determined by


97a logical and empirical analysis of the items in rela

tion to their specific use. Its widespread acceptance

and use in research supports the opinion that the in

strument is a valid measure of critical-thinking abil

ities. Factor analytic studies (Rust, i960 and 1962)

have demonstrated the existence of discrete sub

divisions of critical thinking as measured by the WGCTA

and low subtest intercorrelations indicate that rela

tively distinct abilities are being measured and warrant

their inclusion in one total score.

A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical

Science, Form Z , a copy of which is included in Appendix

E, was developed by the author. This is a ^8-item

multiple-choice test designed to measure the ability of

physics students to think critically and solve problems

having physical-science content. These items are based

on situations common in the physical sciences and involve

data interpretations and the solution of problems of the

type associated with divergent and critical thinking.

Since critical thinking occurs within the realm of

prior experiences and learnings, it is impossible to

eliminate completely the variable of previous learning

or prior recall. However, it is possible to reduce its

influence. Instead of using new and unfamiliar situa

tions, an item is constructed around a familiar situation


98

using a unique approach. In this way, each testee has

similar initial information and the processes of think

ing can he measured. For example, one series of ques

tions involves the concepts of area and volume of a

square and cube. These concepts are probably under

stood by all physics students and are ones with which

he has had many previous contacts and experiences.

In order to further prevent bias from recall, area and

volume are defined and their formulae are given.

Form Z of the test as used in this study is the

result of two prior revisions of the test. The proce

dures used to construct the test were to (l) determine

the objectives to be measured, (2) select a group of

items which measure the objectives and represent a di

versity of situations, (3) have the items reviewed and

criticized by qualified persons in the sciences and

science education, (U) administer experimental forms,

and (5) select items that meet the objectives. In De

cember of 1968, Form X of the test was administered to

165 physics students in 5 representative high-schools

in the Kalamazoo area in order to obtain data for item-

analysis and reliability checks. As a result of this

testing, mouifications were made to improve item dif

ficulty, discrimination, and face validity. From this

effort, Form Y was developed and subsequently


99administered in May, 1969 to ikk physics students in 6 high-schools in the Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids,

Michigan area. Again, an item analysis was made and

the reliability was checked. Meanwhile, this form of

the test was submitted to 15 Judges including 8 faculty

members of the science departments at Western Michigan

University for critical analysis and validation. On

the basis of this information and criticism, Form Z of

A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical Science

was constructed.

Due to the lack of normative data, item analyses

and reliability measures were not available for Form Z

prior to the initial testing. However, the fourth

chapter of this report contains data about the test,

including item-analyses and information concerning re

liability and validity based on the sample of 1,000

physics students from 27 high-schools in southwestern

Michigan. In addition, the scores of this test were

correlated with the scores of the Watson-Glaser Test to

determine the relationship between these two measures

and to ascertain if they measure the same abilities.


CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The Purpose

The purposes of this chapter are to (l) describe

the methods used to analyze the data that were collected,

(2 ) report the reliability coefficients and item-analysis

indices obtained by analyzing scores students received on

A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical Science,

Form Z . (3) describe the findings concerning the effec

tiveness of PSSC and non-PSSC physics programs in the

development of critical-thinking skills, (U) tabulate

the results of the analysis of the main and interacting

effects of physics programs and teacher-student verbal-

interaction behavior on the development of critical-

thinking skills, and (5) report on teacher-student be

havior associated with growth in critical thinking.

Techniques Employed

The data for this study were obtained by analyzing

the scores of two tests of critical-thinking skills and

by using an instrument of classroom verbal interaction.*

The sample population consisted of 27 physics teachers

100


101

and their physics students from 27 high schools in

southwestern Michigan. Since many of the teachers

taught more than one section of physics, 53 physics

classes were included in the sample that was adminis

tered the two tests referred to above. From these 53

physics classes, 30 were selected and observed using

the verbal interaction instrument described in Chapter

III. Three of the 27 teachers taught two different

types of physics courses and so two sets of data were

obtained from these teachers. Usable data concerning

the number of physics classes, students, and observa

tional visits are summarized in Table VIII.

The scores on the critical-thinking tests used for

analysis were the differences between the raw scores

the students obtained on the pre- and post-tests. These

differences, or growth scores, take into account the

initial differences between students and classes and are

the means used to control for differences existing prior

to the beginning of the study.

The observational data consisting of a sequential

list of numbers corresponding to the pre-defined cate

gories of the observational system were transformed into

a matrix by pairing adjacent numbers and placing the

ordered pair into a matrix in which the first number of

the pair corresponds to the rows and the second to the


Reproduced with

permission

of the copyright owner.

Further reproduction prohibited

without permission.

C* TABLE VIII

DATA CONCERNING THE SAMPLE POPULATION

Physics Enrollment______„ . m . Classroom ... .Number of Total Observed Minutes of

School Physics Classes ------------- ■ .- - - Observation InteractionCode Tested Male Female Male Female Visits Recorded

01 3 55 15 20 k 15 26902 2 26 12 20 8 15 31603 1 11 3 11 3 12 311ou 2 3*t 8 16 It 12 20605 2 38 7 21 3 13 26706 1 9 2 9 2 11 30907 3 39 6 15 2 13 32008 1 lU 6 lit 6 13 2o909 1 19 l* 19 It 13 29310 2 25 6 18 1 lU 25911 1 Ik 3 Ik 3 15 281t12 1 l6 k l6 U 15 29313a 1 11 2 11 2 12 307Hta 3 U5 15 17 5 12 31615 2 23 10 7 2 lit 328 102

Reproduced with

permission

of the copyright owner.

Further reproduction prohibited

without permission.

TABLE VIII (continued)

Physics Enrollment „ _ _ _ ClassroomHumber of Total , Minutes of_ . Observed ^School Physics Classes..... ....... .... ..—-— ■ ■ — Observation Interaction

Code Tested Male Female Male Female Visits Recorded

16 3 U7 16 16 5 12 332

17 1 17 2 17 2 12 2 k 9

18 1 I k 2 lU 2 12 275

19 3 33 16 12 7 17 23920 1 9 2 9 2 l l* 27321b 2 37 2 21 2 13 33U

22b 2 26 6 13 2 11 2 6 8

23 2 25 5 lU 3 10 3222 k 1 18 1 18 1 10 2 9 k25 2 31 6 19 3 13 32 326 1 19 2 19 2 15 32727 2 19 6 9 1 13 30828 1 9 2 9 2 11 3012 9 ° 3 31 7 12 3 13 30730c 2 26 __ 8 10 _6 11 303

Totals: 53 7U2 186 UUO 96 386 8 , 8 0 2 103

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE VIII (continued)

Footnote s

Same school and teacher; 13 is the college preparatory class and lU is the general physics class.

^Same school and teacher; 22 is the college preparatory class and 21 is the general physics class.

cSame school and teacher; 30 is the college preparatory class and 29 is the general physics class.

noi

105columns of the matrix. Verbal interaction variables

were defined in terms of combinations of cells or

columns of this matrix. A summary of these variables

together with their operational definitions appear in

Table IX.

The questions posed in Chapter II and which are

answered here are grouped into those related to the

(l) effectiveness of PSSC and non-PSSC physics programs

in developing critical-thinking skills, (2) main and

interacting effects of the type of physics curriculum

and teacher-student verbal interaction behavior on

growth in critical thinking, (3) classroom verbal be-*

havior that enhance the development of critical-thinking

skills, and (k) effectiveness of a paper-pencil test of

critical-thinking skills using physical-science content.

Since the answers to the first groups are based on the

scores obtained on the test referred to in the last

group, the fourth question will be dealt with first.

Statistical Techniques Employed

In this study, tests for significance were made

with the "t” test. Two different forms of the "t" test

were used depending on the question to which answers

were sought. The first type used is the standard "t"

test for uncorrelated random samples, and the second


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE IXVERBAL VARIABLE DEFINITIONS

Variable Name Theoretical Definition Operational Definition

Percentage of time the teacher accepts and uses student ideas and feelings.

Percentage of time the teacher praises and encourages students

Accepts and Uses Ideas and Feelings

Praise and Encouragement

Teacher Low- Percentage of time the teacher Level Questions asks cognitive memory and con

vergent thinking questions.

Percentage of Tallies in Column 1

Column 2

Teacher High- Level Questions

Low-LevelLectureMedium-LevelLectureHigh-LevelLecture

Percentage of time the teacher asks divergent and evaluative thinking questions.

Percentage of time the teacher is engaged in low-level lecture.

Percentage of time the teacher is engaged in medium-level lecture

Percentage of time the teacher is engaged in high-level lecture.

Column 3

Column U

Column 5

Column 6

Column 7

90T

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE IX (continued)


Percentage of Tallies in

8 Directions

Correct ive Feedback

Percentage of time the teacher gives directions to the students.

Percentage of time the teacher gives corrective feedback to the students.

Column 8

Column 9

10 Criticism Percentage of time the teacher criticizes or justifies his own authority.

Column 10

11

12

13

1U

StudentDirected-Response

Student Initiated- Response

StudentLow-LevelQuestions

StudentHigh-LevelQuestions

Percentage of time the students respond to teacher-initiated ideas and statements.

Percentage of time the students initiate their own thoughts and concerns.

Percentage of time the students ask cognitive memory, procedural, or convergent thinking questions.

Percentage of time the students ask divergent or evaluative thinking questions.

Column 11

Column 12

Column 13

Column lU

107

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.



15

16

17

18

FunctionalSilence

Non-FunctionalSilence

SustainedIndirectActivity-

Sustained Direct Act ivity

Percentage of time spent in functional silence such as demonstration or directed study

Percentage of time spent in non-functional silence or irrelevant and indistinguishable behavior.

Percentage of time in which the teacher is engaged in sustained acceptance of student feelings and ideas, praise and encouragement of students, and asking questions of students.

Percentage of time in which the teacher is engaged in sustained lecture, directions, corrective feedback, and criticism or Justification of his own authority.

Percentage of Tallies in

Column 15

Column 16

Percentage of Time Spent

in cells (1-2,3,1+), (2-1, 2.3.U), (3-1,2,3,U),(*»-l ,2 ,3 ,*+) (area A of figure l)

in cells (5-5,6,7,8,9,10), (6-5,6,7,6,9,10), (7-5,6, 7,8,9,10), (8-5,6,7,8,9, 10), (9-5,6,7,8,9,10), (10-5,6,7,8,9,10) (area B of figure 1)

108

TABLE

XX (c

onti

nued

)

109

p •» * ** m rHa a * CM CM C\J .— mo 41 H H * rH P rH ■—•••H p •» « • rH rH pP co rH rH r-% f_| rH rH * 1 H•rl rH pH rH rH r on m »C v ro 1 rH I •> | m .—. rH rH m .-—,•H 0 rH CO *VO 00 ON H H m rH rH4h •rl «t—' ro w rH ---- • CM *at EH CM pH « CM at rH •CVJ 01

Q rH m * • CVJ » rH p nr-» rH P<*H * rH r-s « 0 H P » 0

(—t O H H “ p - rH to rH rH rH to<a pH rH * rH rH rH rH •rH 1 * rH •Ho 4J 1 * H * rH * 1 <t-l rH m I Oho tc rH CO H CO 1 CO O rH H p•H a s -/ H 1 H t— rH rH V) —r • rH OhP p * •.__ ---- O CVJ ' Oa 0 CO CM w CM CM (Q rHp OJ rH rH * rH • rH » o rH * « Pd) a H » ----. * -—. rH rH -•—•p . P 0) H H rH cd 4J H p ato OJ a r“i r-̂ r-i rH rH rH o o 1 H a>

a, 1 » 1 * 1 * p CVJ * Via cm co irv oo co co cd a H on aJ•H »>—' rH ^ rH —" rH >—• •rl '—• i—( —■

a>rH

a♦HU

CM

OnrH

OCVJ

t"— t — t*— t—It * * A

V O V O V O V O * * » * « »I A I A I A I A

« ft A It-=tIt It It •ooforoco» «k «a *

CM CVJ CVJ CVJ * * * *

H H H rHI I I I

H (\l 0 0 4rH rH rH rH

(0 •» •* •»H O O O(1) rH rH rH O <► *» *

OV OV Ovp » «t * *• H 0 O C O C O C O

43 a i P r aCl •rl £3 a 4J •rt p

c •H H 0) to 41 •o 43 44 P -d » c P 43 44•H > rH 13 d P o a O rHp a] 44 0) • p 4J pi . oj a) cd•rl a p rH Pi 44 to 43 to to Pi <U Pn •H a) tO rH o to a to p•rl p P a) On id P o p

0) a 0) P O 0) -H d) vh aa> 0 OJ Vi 0 P 'S P 0 o <uP •H t3 a> •rl p 10 4J CO •rl ■d

P 0 43 p a to V P (0 P to 0i—i p o 0J o 43 cd 0 4> Pa to a) Oh 'd a P 'rl O1 <H O COo o 0) o d cd P o 0•rl 0h P p p O *rl p cd >P 0) o 0J to to P C P dl p O0) to to to S3 •rl (U to CO rHVi cd aj (3 cd 'd •rl OJ t3 cd a rHO P o •H P 0J to p d p •rl O0) (3 a > • (3 "d to c a p (3 Vi43 (U cd 0 Vi a a a/ o to to dJ 43EH o p *—i 0 o a) »d P i'd o O 44

Vi to rH o P p 0 to 0 •d p •rl rHOJ C3 O o 41 X H OJ p fl oj 43 CdP •H Oh o P 0) O P to cd CP > p

44 44 44 44 44rH rH H i—1 Ha al <d cd cd

4> EH to EH >d Eh Eh to Eh0 1 C 1 OJ 1 1 0 1a P •H Vi 0 P P •rl pSB 0 > 4) •h a 0> > C

01 o 43 cd oj 43 O d)<0H O p TJ a rH 'd0 H (0 CO 0 cd H 0P o 0> 0 P 41 O Pco Ph Eh C/3 CO EH pH CO

rHCM


9,10)

(area

E of

figure

1)

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.




22

23

SilenceFollowingTalk

Sustained Funct ional Silence

Percentage of time spent where instances of silence follow teacher talk or student talk.

Percentage of time spent in sustained functional silence,

in cells (1-15), (2-15) , (3-15), (U-15), (5-15),(6- 15), (7-15), (8-15), (9-15), (10-15), (11-15), (12-15), (13-15) , (1^-15) (area F of figure l)

in cell (15-15) (area G of figure l)

2k

25

TalkFollowingSilence

Percentage of time spent in wîch teacher or student talk follows silence.

Sustained Percentage of time spent inNon-Func- sustained non-functional, ir-tional Silence relevant, or indistinguishable

behavior.

in cell (15-1,2,3,U,5,6,7, 8,9,10,11,12,13,l M (area H of figure 1)

in cell (l6-l6) (area I of figure l)

26

27

Teacher Talk Percentage of time the teacherspends talking.

Student Talk Percentage of time the studentsspend talking.

in columns 1 , 2 , 3 , 5,6,7, 8,9,10

in columns 11,12,13,1^

110

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.



Steady State Behavior

Percentage of time spent in sustained behavior by the teacher and student. These are the steady-state diagonal areas.


in steady-state cells (l-l), (2-2), (3-3), (U-U), (5-5), (6-6), (T — 7) , (8-8), (9-9), (10-10), (11-11), (12-12), (13-13), (Ih-lk) , (15-15), (16-16)

V2q Transitional Behavior

V3Q I/D Ratio

V31 i/d Ratio

Percentage of time spent by the teacher and student in transitional behavior.

Ratio of percentage of time teacher spends in Indirect to Direct activity. This is the I/D ratio.

in transitional cells, ecuals 100# minus VariableV2 8Ratio of the Percentageof time spent in columns 1,2,3, and U to that of columns 5,6,7,8,9,10

Ratio of the percentage of time teacher spends in expansive activities (accepting student ideas, 9, and and feelings, and praising and encouraging students) to that in restrictive activity, (giving directions, corrective feedback, and criticizing students or justifying authority). This is i/d ratio.

of time spent in columns 1 and 2 to that of columns 8,

10

111

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.



Ratio of the Percentage

of time spent in columns1,2,3,U,5,6,7,8,9,10 to that in columns 11,12,13 and 1U

ratio.

V__ Teacher-Talk Ratio of the percentage of timeStudent-Talk the teacher talks to that ofRatio student talk. This is the

teacher-talk, student-talk

112

113type, the direct-difference method, for groups having

similar characteristics, as when the same subjects

belong to both groups (Spence et al. , 1968). It should

be noted that since the sample physics classes were

selected using criteria designed to enhance the collec

tion of valid data, these groups may not be random.

However, only growth scores are used and so initial

between-group differences are considered.

Answers to questions concerning the reliability of

the instruments and the relationships between mean and

growth scores and verbal behavior were obtained using

the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient

(Spence et al. , 1968).

A 2-by-3 double-classification analysis of variance

technique described by Spence et al. ( 1968) was used to

determine the main effect and interacting relationships

between the type of physics curriculum and amount of

time spent in various types of verbal interaction be

havior on the development of critical-thinking skills.

Figure 2 illustrates the use of this factorial design in

a sample case. It should be noted that the use of this

design involved 6U separate applications of the tech

nique, one for each test covering each of the 32 inter

action variables. In these applications, the 2-way part

of the design involves PSSC and non-PSSC physics


llU

curricula, whereas the 3-way part involves the amount

of time the physics class spent in each of the 32

verbal variables defined in Table IX. Classes are

assigned to the upper, middle, and lower groups de

pending on whether the verbal behavior of the class

belongs in the upper, middle, and lower third of

verbal behaviors described by that variable.

Figure 2

SAMPLE FACTORIAL DESIGN

nvr—I 0)ua>ao• HPOdU0)-pa

dhV>

Physics Curriculum

PSSC N on-PSSC

h U p p e r

M i d d l e

Lower

Dependent variable: Growth in critical- thinking skills


115

A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical Science

The author-constructed A Test of Critical Thinking

Ability in Physical Science. Form Z , a copy of which

is included in Appendix E, was designed to measure the

critical-thinking and problem-solving skills of high-

school physical-science students. The initial adminis

tration of Form Z was the pre-test in September 1969 and

involved 1,057 high-school physics students. It was re

administered in May 1970 as the post-test to 9^6 of the

same students in the sample population.

After the tests were administered and scored, item

analysis and reliability coefficients were calculated.

The item-difficulty and discrimination indices are sum

marized in Table X. Difficulty indices were calculated

as percentage of students who responded incorrectly to

each item. Thus, a high index of difficulty indicates a

difficult item and a low index an easy item. Item-dis-

crimination indices were calculated by subtracting the

percentage of students below the twenty-seventh percen

tile who responded correctly to an item from the percen

tage of those students above the seventy-third percentile

who responded to the same item. Therefore, a high index

of discrimination indicates an item that discriminates

well between students whereas a low index indicates an


116

TABLE XITEM DIFFICULTY AND DISCRIMINATION INDICES FOR A TEST OF

CRITICAL THINKING ABILITY IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE

Pre-Test Post-Test

Difficulty Discrimin- Difficulty Discrimin- Item ation ation

1 k 9 3 6 52 392 5 9 36 52 323 8 U 19 85 15k 36 2 9 33 305 k l 21 38 306 k 3 k2 38 1*87 6 9 19 67 168 3k 2k 27 2 39 7 2 25 69 22

10 kk 29 k3 2211 7 6 10 7 7 212 3k 22 36 1013 5 8 30 1*8 31lit 6 7 25 65 3315 U5 51 28 1*816 30 60 2k 5617 3k 67 28 6818 35 U7 26 5619 5 2 65 1*2 7120 6 k 1*0 56 6121 6 7 36 51* 6322 57 63 38 722 3 7 1 1*0 58 592 k 3 6 51 32 5325 3k 57 25 5726 U5 57 37 5527 86 2 k 7 8 3028 57 37 1*8 1*329 6 7 k2 5*» k930 8 U 13 75 2531 2 9 kl 21* 1*132 1*3 1*9 37 1*833 6 5 35 56 1*1*3k 55 36 1*1 3935 kl 60 38 61


117

TABLE X (continued)

Pre-Test Post-Test

Difficulty Discrimin- Difficulty Discrimin- Item ation ation

36 6 3 2 5 62 2 937 1*5 50 25 1*038 58 51* 31 5239 92 11 86 2 3i*o U 8 39 39 1*01*1 1*5 52 37 561*2 1*7 53 37 5 1*1*3 59 53 1*6 511+1+ 81 35 7 0 1*71*5 86 32 7 8 1*21*6 68 17 62 181+7 82 2 9 67 1*21*8 81 12 76 21


118

item that does not discriminate so well. Item-difficulty

indices range from 2h to 92 and item-discrimination in

dices range from 2 to 72 with median values of 51 for

difficulty and Uo for discrimination. Mean difficulty

and discrimination indices were 56.8 and 37.5 for the

pre-test, and U8.9 and Uo.9 for the post-test. As

might be expected, the mean difficulty of the test de

creased from pre- to post-administration. However, the

general discriminatory power of the test increased

during the same period. A difficulty-dlscrimination

matrix for the items on the test appears in Appendix F.

Coefficients of correlation were computed to deter

mine the reliability of the critical-thinking instrument.

Table XI summarizes the linear correlations and inter

correlations between the pre- and post-tests of each

instrument. One measure of reliability, the stability

of the test, is the coefficient of correlation between

the pre- and post-tests. This coefficient was .77 for

the test in question. The intercorrelations between the

WGCTA and the author's test ranged from .55 to ,6l and

were computed to determine the relationship between the

two tests and the degree to which they measure the same

abilities. The intermediate values for the intercorre

lation coefficients were approximately what were expected

because the content of the WGCTA is general and the test


119appears to be verbally oriented whereas the author's

test is more problem oriented and uses content asso

ciated with the physical sciences.

TABLE XI

INTERCORRELATION OF CRITICAL THINKING TEST SCORES

TestWat son-Glaser

Test

Critical Test

Phys ical

ThinkinginScience

Pre Pos t Pre Post

Watson-Glaser Test Pre

Watson-Glaser Test Post .73

Pre-Crit ical Thinking Test in Physical Science .56 .57

Post-Critical Thinking Test in Physical Science .55 .61 .77

Table XII summarizes the results of analyses

using chance-half and Kuder-Richardson Formula 21 re

liability estimates (Gronlund, 1965). These coeffi

cients of correlation are both measures of internal

consistency based on a single administration of the


120test. Both methods give estimates of the internal

reliability of the test. However, Gronluna (1965)

indicates that the variations in the size of the

reliability coefficients are due to the method of

estimating reliability. He also indicates that every

thing else being equal, the Kuder-Richardson formula

tends to yield higher coefficients and the chance-half

method lower coefficients. The coefficients for the

pre- and post-tests are .82 and .83 respectively using

the Kuder-Richardson Formula, and .66 and .67 respec

tively using the chance-half method.

TABLE XII

INTERNAL RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS FOR THE CRITICAL THINKING INSTRUMENTS

Kuder-Richardson Chance-halfTe st Pre Po 81 Pre Post

Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal .80 .8H .61 .63

A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical Science .82 .83 .66 .67


121

Effectiveness of PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics Programs for Developing

Critical-Thinking Skills

The results of the various techniques described

earlier to compare the effectiveness of PSSC and non-

PSSC physics programs in developing critical-thinking

skills are summarized in TableB XIII through XVI.

Table XIII reports the results obtained for each

class tested for growth in critical-thinking abilities.

An examination of the "t's" calculated by the direct-

differcnce method shows that 30 classes demonstrated

significant growths on the WGCTA and 36 classes demon

strated significant growths on A Test of Critical

Thinking Ability in Physical Science at the .05 level

of significance.

The relative effectiveness of PSSC and non-PSSC

physics programs to develop critical-thinking skills

was determined by comparing the mean growth scores of

the students in those two groups on each test of

critical thinking using the Mt" test. The results that

appear in Table XIV show that the two groups did not

differ significantly with respect to growth in critical

thinking on either criterion instrument. It should be

noted that the comparisons in this analysis were made

between growth scores for the 53 physics classes and


Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

SUMMARY OF GROWTHTABLE XIII

SCORES FOR EACH CLASS ON THE TESTS OF CRITICAL THINKING

Critical Thinking TestWatson-GlaBer Test in Physical Science

Number NumberSchool of Mean of of Mean ofCode Section Pairs Difference "t" Pairs Difference "t"

01 3* 22 3.909 3 *291a 2k 5.583 5.56U*5 23 U.173 2.901; 23 . 739 *.03*“6 22 5.227 3. U6U 22 6.5*5 6 .*39“

02 k* 26 U.153 2 .280b 28 7.392 8.891“5 12 1.250 . 39*t 11 2.727 1 . 52*

03 3* lU -3.285 -1.U29 lU .1*2 .13*

OU 2 22 1.272 .650 21 1.380 1 *l6°bk* 20 3.600 1.870 19 3.526 2 . 568

05 2 20 7.500 5.687® 17 3.76* It.176 “5* 23 5.000 3.6Ul 21 k. 666 3.268

06 1* 11 k. U5^ 1.357 10 1.700 1.077

07 1 15 .866 .U62 12 2.916 2 .23*b2 13 U.538 1.7*5 12 it.833 It.57°“3* lU 1. 000 .U6l 17 3.176 3.*97

122

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.

TABLE XIII (continued)

SchoolCode Section

Watson-Glaser TestCritical Thinking Test in Physical Science

Numberof

PairsMean of

Di fference "t"

Numberof

PairsMean of

Di fference "t"

08 1* 20 5.750 2 .822b 20 1.800 1.841

09 1« 22 5.818 3.679a 22 3.272 2 .876a

10 2 12 3.750 1 • 8°7 12 1.000 *7785* 18 7.777 3.664 18 5.944 6.055

11 2* 15 3.533 2.343b 17 4.941 4.535a

12 3* 19 2 . 368 2.078 19 3.210 4.250a

13 U* 13 4.692 3.449a 13 4.538 2.991b14 1 21 4.666 3.983a 21 2.428 2 .364b

2 17 2.294 1.407 17 1.882 2.0575* 22 5.363 2.954a 22 2.090 1.873

15 2 2k 4.875 3.796a 24 5.291 4.247a5* 9 8.888 3.103 8 5.750 2.454

16 1* 20 3.100 2.6o6b 21 3.333 2.503?2 18 5.777 3 *100» 19 3.210 2.386°5 20 5.800 3.783 21 2.571 4 .052 123

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.


SchoolCode Section


Numberof

PairsMean of

Di fference "t"

Numberof

PairsMean of

Difference "t"

17 5* 19 .578 .U28 19 2.9k7 2.U60b

18 1* 15 3.866 2.527^ 15 5.866 It. 626tt

19 3 Ik 5.642 2. 9 7 ^ lit 2.785 1.8°719 U.631 2.893? 19 3.89U 3.288

6 16 5.125 2.519 16 1.687 1.283

20 5* 11 5.909 2.621b 11 U.5U5 3.125*

21 2 13 .153 .059 16 5.062 3.29k&3* 22 2 . it09 I.658 21 2.761 2.030

22 1 17 it. Ull 2.629b 17 5.235 It. U23a5* lit .lk2 .095 lit 2.357 2.031

23 1* 15 .800 • *t 89 16 U.lt37 3.08la2 13 7.230 3.267 13 It.538 3.576a

2k 5* 19 1. U21 .771 19 .789 1.035

25 it 15 3.733 i.U59h 15 5.933 It.360?5* 22 5.0U5 2.807 22 It.181 5 .196 12k

Reproduced

with perm

ission of the

copyright ow

ner. Further


without

permission.


SchoolCode Section


Humberof

PairsMean of

Difference "t"Number

ofPairs

Mean of Difference "t"

26 6* 20 k.koo 2 .156b 18 2.1*1*1* 2.076

27 2 15 1.866 1.518 1U 1.11*2 * 9575* 10 - .900 - . 571* 10 3.800 3.991

28 2* 11 3.727 1.791 11 U .181 3.685a

29 3* Ik 1.571 1.01U Ik 3.000 2.1*82b1* 13 2.923 1.50U 13 2.230 1.9995 7 9.lk2 5.303 7 1*. 71U 1.726

30 1» 15 7.000 3.538* 15 5.1*00 2 . 9l*6b6 18 3.722 2.372 18 7.166 6 .26U

«Indicates class observed.

Significant at .01 level.

^Significant at .05 level.

125

126therefore adjustments have been made for initial differ

ences between individuals and groups.

TABLE XIVCOMPARISON OF PSSC AND NON-PSSC PHYSICS PROGRAMS USING

THE CRITERION CRITICAL THINKING TESTS

PSSC Non -PSSCTest N Mean N Mean "t"

Watson-Glaser Test 375 3.877 519 3.85U .01*6Critical Thinking Test in Physical

Science 371 H.000 521 3.572 1.229

Additional comparisons between PSSC and non-PSSC

physics programs were also made between the 30 classes that were systematically observed. These analyses are summarized in Tables XV and XVI that contain the results

of the factorial design of the main effects and Joint relationships between physics curricula and verbal behavior on the development of critical-thinking skills. The results of the comparison of PSSC and non-PSSC physics curricula using the Watson-Glaser Test are reported in the middle column of Table XV. A similar comparison using A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in

Physical Science as the criterion is reported in Table


127

TABLE XVFACTORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN EFFECTS AND INTERACTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND THE

DEPENDENT VARIABLE*

Main EffectsVerbal Interaction Physics Interactive

Variable Curriculum RelationshipVariable F-ratio1 F-ratio2 F-ratio1

V1 .2U6

V2 2.205

V3 .393vu .01*0

V 5 3.011*

v6 1.809

v7 2.711*

v8 1.01*0

v9 1.250

V10 3.110

V11 2.922

V12 2.851*

V13 2.898

Vl»* 1.260

V15 1.997

Vl6 .731

V17 2.318

V18 2.563

V19 1.593

V20 8.007

V21 1.1*08

V22 .523

V23 1*. 735

.605 .626

.1*06 2. 322

.916 .329

.732 2.1261.313 .7501.250 .722. 066 .818

1. 306 2.271*1.255 .397.031 2.791*

2.272 .6801.219 .050.59U 3.020.61*3 2.060.753 1.156

1.200 1.530.292 .365.01*8 1*. 210

1.352 1.925.259 .271.158 . 160.675 .61*6.081 .293


128

TABLE XV (continued)

Main Effects

Variable

Verbal Interaction VariableF-ratio^"

PhysicsCurriculum

4 . 4 2F-ratio

Interactive Relat ionship

F-ratio*"

V2U 1.785 1.522 1.561

V25 1.263 .163 3.369b

V26 .693 .Uh6 1.117V27 1.9U9 .31*2 2.802-

00 1 CVI > 1.727 1.1*82 .165

v29 1.987 2.576 .1*31

V30 2.165 2.1*28 1.532

V31 1.265 .518 .9U7

V32 3.2U5 .153 2.712

«The dependent variable is growth in critical-

thinking skills as measured by the Watson -GlaserCritical Thinking Appraisal. -

^Tor 2 and 200 dF: F• U1F .05

= 1*. 71 = 3. 0l+

2For 1 and 200 dF: F• U1

F .05

» 6.76 * 3 . 8 9

Significant at .01 level •

Significant at .05 level •


129

TABLE XVIFACTORIAL ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN EFFECTS AND INTERACTING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDEPENDENT VARIABLES AND THE

DEPENDENT VARIABLE*

__________Main Effects__________Verbal Interaction Physics Interactive

Variable Curriculum RelationshipVariable F-ratio^ F-ratio^ F-ratio^

V1 U.17 5b 1.150 .007

V2 .063 1.930 3. 7l+7bV23 3.6o6b l*.586b U.269b

VU 1.089 1.032 .121V<5 .977 1.681 1.398

V6 1. 5U0 2.1*30 2.035

V7 1.31*5 .1*51 .917v l».5l*9b .1*77 l*.0l*5buVQ 1 .1L8 3.1*13 3.8o8b

aN

rH > 3.221b .213 U.260b

V11 3.8U3b 1*. Ullb 3.337bVV12 1.905 3.U25 3.310°

V13 5.087a 2.1H8 1. 318

V1U 2.0U9 3.1*56 1.803

V15 1.671* 1.1*82 .567

Vl6 2.389 .233 .9U2

V17 5.522a 1.829 9.387a• CO rH > .155 1.56U .672

V19 2.295 1.1*0U 1.711*

V20 .1*99 2.081 .73UV21 .697 2.1*05 2.053

< ro 2.381 3.270 1.283v23 1.1*51 1.795 2.217


130

TABLE XVI (continued)

__________Main EffectsVerbal Interaction Physics Interactive

Variable Curriculum RelationshipVariable F-ratio1 F-ratio2 F-ratio1

V2b 1.582

V25 3.9^5

V26 2 .UU3

V27 1.676

V28 H.038

V29 2.857

V30 3.650

V31 2.0U8

V32 2.685

3.352 2.1932.727 3.8191.387 1.68b2.00b 2.02b7.051a 7.0851.688 2.060U.ll*9b 1. 0b91.098 2. 6bl.305 2.835

«The dependent variable is grovth in critical- thinking skills as measured by A TeBt of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical Science.

1For 2 and 200 dF: F = b.71

c - ^

2For 1 and 200 dF: F n » 6.76

aSignificant at .01 level.



131XVI. No significant "F's" were found in Table XV, al

though U were found in Table XVI in the 6U comparisons.

Main Effects and Interacting Relationships between Physics Programs and Verbal Behavior

on the Development of Critical Thinking

Answers to the questions concerning the main effects and interacting relationships between the type of physics program and amount of various verbal behaviors on critical-thinking skills were sought using the doubleclassification analysis of variance technique. Thirty of the 53 physics classes tested for critical-thinking skills were observed and teacher-pupil verbal interac

tion data were collected. These data were translated into 30 matrices, one for each class observed, and 32 variables consisting of the percentage of time spent in various cells or columns of the matrix were identified

and compiled. A rank ordering was made of each variable and a value of 1, 2, or 3 was assigned to that variable for each physics class corresponding with its position in the upper, middle, or lower third of the rank ordering. Each of the 30 physics classes was assigned to one of the 6 cells of the factorial design, depending on its ranking on the verbal interaction variables and whether they used PSSC or non-PSSC physics programs. The factorial design provides three "F’s" for each analysis,


132one for the main effect of each independent variable and one for the interacting relationship between the

independent variables. Since the analysis was used 6U

times, once for each of the 32 verbal variables on the critical-thinking tests, a total of 192 "F's" were

calculated.The results of those analyses for the two criterion

tests are given in Tables XV and XVI. Table XV summarizes the analysis for the WGCTA and Table XVI for A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical Science. Since the effect of the type of physics program on the dependent variable has already been discussed in the previous section, it will not be repeated.

The first column of Table XV reports the results

of the analysis of the main effect of the 32 verbal interaction variables. Four of these comparisons, involving the variables of Teacher Criticism, Sustained Stu-

cent Talk, Sustained Functional Silence, and Teacher- Talk Student-Talk Ratio, were significant. The last column of Table XV indicates the joint or interacting relationship between the independent variables on the development of critical-thinking skills. Two of these comparisons, involving the verbal variables of Sustained Direct Activity and Sustained Non-Functional Silence, were significant.


133The first column of Table XVI indicates the main

effect of the 32 verbal interaction variables on the

development of critical-thinking skills using the

author's test as the criterion measure. Ten signifi

cant comparisons involving verbal variables V^, V^» Vg,

V10» Vl l 9 V13» V 17» V25* V28» and V30 Were found of the 32 comparisons made. The last column of Table XVI indicates the Joint or interacting relationships of the independent variables on the development of critical- thinking skills. Ten of the 32 comparisons were made

significant. These significant "F's" were found for

variables Vg , V 3# VQ , V^% V1Q, V ^ , V1 2 , V1 ? , V ^ , and and v£8.

The factorial design used in this section was designed in part to determine the relationship between different amounts of verbal behavior and the development of critical thinking. This was accomplished by placing

each claes into one of three levels or groups depending on the amount of time the class spent in various types of verbal behavior. As a result of this grouping, all entries into a matrix cell are treated as being equiva

lent, when, in fact, each cell contains a continuum of verbal interaction behavior values. Because of this characteristic, a product-moment correlation was calculated between the mean grovth scores of each group and


13Ueach of the 32 verbal interaction variables. This anal

ysis treats each verbal variable as a discrete value

rather than putting each into a cell and considering those in each cell as being equal. The results of these analyses are summarized in Tables XVII and XVIII.

Table XVII contains the results of calculations

of product-moment correlations between average growth Bcores as determined by the WGCTA for each class and the 32 verbal interaction variables. Table XVIII summarizes the same information using the author's test as the criterion measure. An examination of these tables

indicates coefficients of correlation ranging from about -.U to +.U with the median value at about zero. Higher

positive coefficients of correlation between mean growth scores and verbal behavior exist for High-Level Lecture, High -Level Student Questions, I/D Ratio, and i/d Ratio, whereas lower negative correlations exist for Teacher Criticism and Irrelevant Behavior.

Verbal Behavior Associated with the Development of Critical-Thinking Skills

An effort was made to identify the classroom verbal

behavior that was associated with growth in critical thinking. Specifically, the effort sought to answer question 6 concerning specific verbal interaction vari

ables that enhance the development of critical-thinking


135

TABLE XVIICORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE GROWTH SCORES

AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR VARIABLES*

VariableProduct-Moment Correlation Coefficient Variable

Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient

V1 .272 V17 .251

V2 ,2kk* 1

Vl8 .07U

V3 . 2k6 V19 .157

vu .290 V20 -.207

V 5 -.125 V21 .158

V6 -.118 V22 .022

VT .217 V23 .008

V8 .065 V2U .022

V9 .078 V25 -.181

V10 -.392 V26 .190

V11 -.152 V27 -.130

V12 .011 V28 -.1U9

V13 -.185 V29 . lUl

V1U .250 V30 .313

V15 .010 V31 .220

Vl6 -.198 V32 .067

«The Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal is the criterion instrument of growth in critical thinking.


136

TABLE XVIIICORRELATION BETWEEN AVERAGE GROWTH SCORES

AND VERBAL BEHAVIOR VARIABLES*

Variable

Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient Variable

Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient

Y1 .315 V17 . 300

V2 .385 Vl8 .103

V 3 . 1U0 V19V20

. ll*2.JVl* .1*16 -.071+

V 5 -.111 V21 .200

v6 -.197 V22 -.035

v7 .287 V23 -.123

v8 .118 V2U -.031*v9 -.279 V25 -.185

V10 -.1*01* V26 .213

V11 -.051 V27 -.022

V12 .102 V28 -.165

V13 -.157 V29 .159.1*17 V30 .351*

V15 -.111 V31 .267

Vl6 -.202 V32 .122

*A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical

Sciencecritical

is the criterion thinking.

instrument of growth in


137skills in the physics classroom. This was accomplished

by identifying those 6 physics teachers whose students

gained the most and those 6 physics teachers whose stu

dents gained the least in critical-thinking skills.

Then the measures of their verbal interaction behaviors

were compared.

The upper and lower 6 physics classes with respect

to growth in critical thinking were identified by com

puting mean growth scores for each physics class on each

criterion instrument of critical-thinking skills. Table

XIX lists the physics classes that were identified in

those groups.

Comparisons between the 32 verbal interaction vari

ables defined in Table XIX were made to determine if

differences existed in the verbal behavior of the two

groups. The results of the "t" test used to compare the

verbal interaction variables are reported in Table XX.

These comparisons were made between the verbal behavior

of teachers in the top and bottom fifths as determined

by the growth scores on the two critical-thinking in

struments. An examination of the "t's" indicates that 1

of the 6U ratios computed is significant.

Additional comparisons were also made between the

PSSC and non-PSSC physics classes for the same verbal

variables. It was thought that the professed differences


138In philosophy, objectives, and organization of the

physics programs might produce different and unique

verbal behaviors. The results of the comparison be

tween the verbal behavior of the two groups appear in

Table XXI. The "t's" obtained indicate that only 1

variable, namely, Teacher High-Level Questions, differs

significantly between the two groups of teachers.

TABLE XIX

SCHOOLS AND TEACHERS IN THE TOP AND BOTTOM FIFTHS IN DEVELOPMENT OF CRITICAL-THINKING SKILLS

Watson -Glaser TestCritical Thinking Test in Physical Science

Top 6 Bottom 6 Top 6 Bottom 6

08 03 01 03

09 07 02 06

10 17 10 08

15 22 15 14

20 23 18 22

30 27 30 2k


139

TABLE XXCOMPARISON OF VERBAL VARIABLES BETWEEN TEACHERS IN TOP

AND BOTTOM FIFTHS OF GROWTH SCORES IN CRITICAL THINKING

Variable

Watson-Glaser Test

Top Bottom Fifth Fifth Mean Mean t-ratio

Critical Thinking Test in Physical ScienceTop Bottom

Fifth Fifth Mean Mean t-ratio

V1 U. 322 3.608 .622 4.538 3.155 1.118V2 1.150 1.088 .170 1.468 .870 1.672

V 3 1* .687 4.217 .589 4.873 4.843 .026

V4 .818 .567 .826 1.190 .588 1.475

V 5 5 .862 6 . 417 -.179 7.715 6.255 .236

v6 33.868 33.037 .136 30.395 35.032 -.817

v7 14.052 12.740 .157 18.537 10.865 .983

v8 3.403 3.325 .081 4.217 3.623 .551

v9 .738 .1*92 1.882 .588 .845 -1.309

V10 .182 .590 -.987 .333 .987 -1.307

V11 6.365 8.028 -1.036 5.918 7.912 -1.344

V12 4.918 4. 507 . 46o 4. 383 4.678 -.290

V13 2.813 2.877 -.108 2.453 3.077 -.739

Vl4 .102 .028 1.372 . 110 .045 1.267

V15 14.110 12.428 . 1*98 11.182 11.712 -.190• yVl6 1.732 5.363 -1.045 1.202 4.698 -1.713

V17 4.330 3.917 .351 4.867 3.513 1.015

Vl8 51.595 50.215 .222 55.323 50.457 1.385

V19 6.017 5.360 .681 6.028 6.207 -.178“ y V20 7.160 8.938 -.878 5.870 8. 500 -1.513

V21 6.297 5.703 .618 6 . 410 6.250 .159

V22 3.815 3.803 .023 3.828 3.750 .115


1*0

TABLE XX (continued)

Variable

Watsoni-Glaser Test Critical Thinking Test in Physical Science

TopFifthMean

BottomFifthMean t-ratio

TopFifthMean

Bottom Fifth Mean t-ratio

V23 10.283 8.593 .557 7.3*5 7.9*2 -.26*

V2* 3.723 3.702 .0*3 3.723 3.667 .083

v25 1.537 *.8*7 -.973 .963 *.080 -1.688

V26 69.082 66.080 .*27 73.900 67.063 2. 3811

V27 1*.198 15.**0 -.*63 12.865 15.712 -1.225

V28 72.028 73.077 .*06 70.932 71.333 -.138

V29 27.093 26.235 .33* 28.217 27.852 .12*

V30 .187 .163 .662 .197 .158 .78*

V31 1.552 1.373 .278 1. *22 .762 1. 510

V32 5.173 5.298 -.071 6. 560 *.*73 1.5**

^Significant at the .05 level, t = 2.201.


TABLE XXICOMPARISON OF THE VERBAL INTERACTION VARIABLES

OF PSSC AND NON-PSSC PHYSICS TEACHERS

PSSC Teachers N on-PSSC TeachersVariable Mean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev. t-ratio

V1 1*.535 1 . 91*6 3.973 2.182 .695

V2 1.281 .838 1.236 .711 .250

V3 b.975 1.215 1+.716 1.687 .330

Vl+ 1.165 .760 .618 . 1+72 2 .262b

V5 1+.61+5 5. 572 8. 532 9.912 -1.179

V6 27.038 12.281 3U.538 11.978 -1.533

V7 18.856 16.38U 11.1+78 12.968 1.383v U.195 1.679 3.5U2 1.1+78 1.165

VQ .578 .258 .572 .357 .259

ov

rH > .1+81+ .683 .1+67 .670 .095

V11 7.81+7 3. 300 6.662 2.861 .928

CVJ 1

rH > 5.101 1.788 1+.275 1.786 1. 381

V13 2.806 1.110 2 . 91+2 1. 326 - .137

VH+ .073 . 086 .01+8 .091 . 826

V15 13.11+9 5.309 11.758 6.065 .891

V16 2.1+25 2.265 3.950 6.109 -1.323

V17 5.035 2.1+1+6 1*. 301 2.535 .7 59

Vl8 1*9.173 7.582 52.582 10.1+01+ - .579

V19 5.9^2 1.U81 5.838 1.675 .090

V20 8.763 3.698 7.103 3.827 1.21+7

V21 6.232 1. 380 6.223 I.63I* - .025V22 i+.ioi+ .845 3.1+00 1.11+3 2.053V23 9.030 1+. 677 8. 338 5.155 .602


ll*2

TABLE XXI (continued)

VariablePSSC Teachers Non-PSSC Teachers

t-ratioMean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.

V21+ 3.998 .861 3.293 1.126 2.056

VP5 2.083 2. 052 3.578 5.888 -1.335

V26 67.752 8.9^9 69.668 11.616 - .11*3

V27 15.827 1+. 916 13.927 1*. 835 1.087■ 00 <\ > 70.525 3.872 72.635 1*. 510 -1.1*33

V29 28.626 3.81*9 26.667 1*. 1*2 3 1. 361*

V30 .209 . 06l .177 .079 .939

V31 1.1+1+8 1.161+ 1.31*6 .91+1* .203

V32 U.955 2. 6o6 5.988 3.215 - .815



1U3An examination of the top 6 and bottom 6 physics

classes as determined by the scores on the criterion

instruments of critical thinking indicated that in the

subjective Judgment of the observer some classes would

not have been included in these groups, whereas others

would have been included. This subjective Judgment was

based on the investigator's observation of the sample

classes and his assessment of the activities, assign

ments, and verbal interaction that promote critical

thinking. At the request of the Chairman of the inves

tigator's Doctoral Advisory Committee, comparisons were

made between the verbal behaviorsof the top 6 anu bottom

6 physics classes that would have been subjectively se

lected by the investigator prior to statistical analysis.

The classes selected in this manner for the upper group

were 02, 05, 13, 15, 22, and 30 and for the loyer group

were 03, 10, 12, IT, 27, and 28. The comparisons be

tween the verbal interaction variables were made using

the "t" test and the results are reported in Table XXII.

An examination of the "t's" indicate that significant

differences were observed for 7 of the 32 computed. The

significant verbal variables were Accepts and Uses Ideas

and Feelings of Students, Teacher Praise and Encourage

ment, Teacher High-Level Questions, Teacher Low-Level

Lecture, Teacher High-Level Lecture, Sustained Indirect


Ikk

TABLE XXIICOMPARISON OF THE VERBAL INTERACTION VARIABLES OF THE TOP AND BOTTOM 6 PHYSICS CLASSES BASED ON THE SUBJECTIVE

JUDGMENT OF THE AUTHOR

VariableTop 6 Bottom 6

t-ratioMean St . Dev. Mean St. Dev.

V1 U.800 1.718 2.752 .81*1* 2.393b

V2 1.623 .925 .628 .331 2.265b

V3 5.197 2.207 U.968 .686 .221

Vl* 1. 383 .81*3 .287 . 189 2.81*0b

V 5 1.1U2 1.151 9.182 3. 301 -5. ll*2a✓

v6 23.063 9.681* 32.802 11.511* -1.1*1*7

VT 29.800 6.61*2 .1*58 .550 9 . 8 U U a

V8 3.162 1.100 1*. 310 1. 312 -1.500

v9 . 660 .298 . 1*82 .261 1.006

V10 .325 .292 .61*0 .868 - .769V11 8.782 1*. 535 8. 3U0 2.035 .199

V12 5.813 1.195 I*. 372 1.559 I.6U1on

1 H

> 2.582 1.009 2.960 .703 - .688

V1U .082 .091* .013 .022 1.581

v15 9.983 2.286 15.31*5 7.91*6 -1.1*50

V16 .735 . 1*1*0 11.735 12.351 -1.990

V17 5.392 2.267 2.895 .925 2.280b

VX8 51.286 8.652 1*1.578 9.773 1.6636.867 1.812 5.537 1.215 1.363

v O

1

C\J > 9.U68 1+. 61*7 8.81*3 3.066 .251

V21 7.130 1.820 5.81*0 1.051* 1.371

V22 3.563 .830 3.868 1.1*09 - . 1*17

V23 6. Ul7 1.573 11.1*1*3 6.765 -1.6l8


1U5

TABLE XXII (continued)

VariableTop 6 Bottom 6

t-ratioMean St. Dev. Mean St. Dev.

V2U 3.U63 .853 3.768 1.379 - . U21

V25 .523 .3U0 11.115 12.188 -1.9^3

V26 71.155 7.3U9 56.508 10.9^5 2.k8kbV27 17.258 5.982 15.685 3.276 . 516-

CO1

OJ > 69.608 5.871 72.633 3. 560 - .985

V29 29.523 5.885 26.6U0 3.U51 .9^5

V30 .227 . 088 .180 .0U5 1.055

V31 1.800 1.022 .727 .U50 2.150

V 32 U.852 2.188 3.7^3 1.0U6 1.022

Significant at .01 level.

S ignificant at .05 level.


li*6Behavior, and Total Teacher-Talk. Consistent, hut non

significant, results were also found on at least 9

other variables, namely, VQ , V12, V ^ , V ^ , V ^ , V ^ ,

v23, v25, and v31.

In summary, the use of a specific criterion, such

as grovth in critical-thinking skills as measured by

paper-pencil tests does not appear to identify con

trasting groups whose verbal-interaction behaviors dif

fer significantly. Similarly, PSSC and non-PSSC physics

teachers do not appear to differ in the use of verbal

classroom behavior as measured by the 32 verbal vari

ables of this study. In contrast, the subjective judg

ment of the investigator based on approximately 13

visits to each class seems to identify groups that use

significantly different verbal behavior. A word of

caution should be stated, however, in that the subjec

tive judgment of the observer may be influenced more by

the verbal behavior in the classroom than by the other

criteria that the observer believes he is using to

select the top and bottom groups.


CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Problem

The purposes of this investigation were to (l) con

struct and validate a paper-pencil test with physical-

science content designed to measure critical-thinking

and problem-solving skills, (2) determine the relative

effectiveness of PSSC and non-PSSC physics programs to

develop critical-thinking skills, and (3) identify types

of verbal classroom interaction behavior that enhance the

development of critical-thinking skills.

In order to obtain the data needed, approximately

1,000 students from 27 high schools in Michigan represen

ting 53 physics classes were tested during the 1969-70

school year with pre- and post-tests of critical-thinking

skills. The tests used were the Watson-Glaser Critical

Thinking Appraisal. Form ZM (WGCTA) and a test constructed

by the author for use in this study, A Test of Critical

Thinking Ability in Physical Science. Form Z . In addi

tion, 30 of these physics classes were observed system

atically on several occassions and the teacher-pupil

verbal interaction was recorded using a modification of

1^7


1U8the Flanders System of Interaction Analysis. Other data

were also collected, among them, the academic backgrounds,

teaching experience, and characteristics of the teachers,

descriptive data concerning the participating schools

and their physics programs, and the mental abilities of

their students. The data collected were analyzed for

answers to the following questions:

1. What differences exist between PSSC and non-

PSSC physics students in the development of

critical-thinking skills as measured by the

criterion instruments?

2. What differences exist between students in

PSSC and non-PSSC physics classes in the growth

of critical-thinking skills as measured by the

criterion instruments while controlling for

teacher-student verbal behavior?

3. To what extent do teacher-pupil interaction be

havior influence the development of critical-

thinking skills as measured by the criterion

instruments?

U. In what ways are the independent variables of

physics curriculum and verbal behavior related

to the dependent variable of growth in critical-

thinking as measured by the criterion instru

ments?


1U95. What is the relationship between teacher-pupil

interaction behavior and growth in critical-

thinking skills as determined by the criterion

instruments ?

6. What differences exist between the verbal be

havior of those teachers whose students gain

the most and that of those teachers whose stu

dents gain the least in critical-thinking abil

ities as measured by the criterion instruments?

7. How may a defensible paper-pencil test of

critical-thinking ability be constructed using

physical-science content?

The results of the analyses of the data are found

in Tables I through XXII of the preceding chapters. Con

clusive answers were not obtained to all the questions

listed above, and, hence, one important aspect of this

study is related to implications for further research.

Other findings, however, provide answers to questions

that may have immediate application in the physics class

room. Also, other results appear to be related to ques

tions not originally posed. For convenience, the discus

sion that follows is presented under three major headings.

These headings are (l) summary and conclusions, (2) re

commendations for improving critical-thinking skills in

the physics classroom, and (3) recommendations for further research.


150

Summary and Conclusions

The summary of the findings and conclusions that

follow are based on the data collected and the observa

tions conducted in physics classes during the 1969-70

school year. Since many of the conclusions result from

scores students obtained on A Test of Critical Thinking

Ability in Physical Science. Form Z , constructed for use

in this study, that test will be discussed first. Speci

fic questions will not be discussed indiviaually; rather

they will be considered as groups of questions that re

late to a specific objective.

1. A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical

Science. Form Z was constructed as a paper-pencil test

to measure critical-thinking skills using physical-

science content as its focus. Three estimates of reli

ability were calculated. The first measured the stabil

ity of the test from pre- to post-administration and

yielded a coefficient of correlation of .77. The other

two estimates measured tb<* internal consistency, or re

liability, of the test, with resulting reliability coef

ficients ranging from .66 to .8U. Coefficients of inter-

correlation ranging from .55 to .61 were also calculated

by comparing this test with the WGCTA. indicating that

the two tests measured similar, but not identical skills.


151Higher intercorrelations were not expected, because the

WGCTA is verbally oriented and based on general content

whereas the author's test was constructed on a problem

solving format focusing on physical-science content.

The sensitivity of the test to changes in critical-

thinking skills was indicated by the fact that 36 of the

53 physics classes tested demonstrated statistically

sig nifi^nnt increases in critical-thinking skills over an

eight-month period. The changes in the remaining IT

classes, although not statistically significant, demon

strate consistent improvements in critical-thinking

skills.

The validity of the test is based in part on the

methods used to construct and improve the test prior to

its use in this study. Other evidence supporting its

validity are based on what may be termed "content valid

ity." Content validity may be determined by an analysis

of the test's content with respect to the delineation of

skills involved in critical thinking. However, there is

no general agreement concerning the universe of skills

into which all aspects of critical thinking may be

classified. Therefore, the content validity of this

test is based on the degree to which the test's content

measures those abilities delineated in Chapter I, data

from item analyses, and the ratings of the 15 "experts"


152who critically examined the instrument.

On the basis of these findings concerning the

reliability, sensitivity, and validity of the test, it

may be concluded that A Test of Critical Thinking

Ability in Physical Science. Form Z is a sufficiently

reliable and valid instrument that can be used conven

iently for measuring critical-thinking skills in physics.

2. The relative effectiveness of PSSC and non-PSSC

physics programs in developing critical-thinking skills

was investigated in two ways. The first involved a

comparison between the mean growth scores of 21 PSSC

and 32 non-PSSC physics classes on each test of critical

thinking, whereas the second involved only the 30 physics

classes that were observed. The former comparisons

failed to indicate significant differences between the

two groups whereas the latter analysis failed to indicate

significant differences when the WGCTA was used as the

criterion measure. However, k significant ratios were

indicated when the author's test was the criterion. In

the latter analysis, 6k separate ratios were calculated, one for each verbal variable on each test. The implica

tions of these U significant differences are not readily

apparent because the analysis between columns (PSSC

versus non-PSSC) is independent of other variables and

always involves the same students in each group.


153From these computations, there is little evidet. *

to support the belief that either the PSSC or the non-

PSSC physics program is more effective in developing

critical-thinking skills. This conclusion is further

supported by an examination of Table XIII which indi

cates that about the same percentage of PSSC and non-

PSSC classes demonstrated significant growths in

critical-thinking skills throughout the school year.

The findings with respect to the two types of physics

programs are not surprising, if one subscribes to the

belief that the teacher is one of the most important

variables in the teaching-learning process. Such a

belief assumes that the program or textbook used is

merely a tool to complement the teacher, not a conse

quential factor in and of itself.

3. Data were also obtained concerning the extent

to which teacher-pupil interaction behaviors influence

the development of critical-thinking skills. To answer

this, a factorial design and the 30 physics classes for

which verbal interaction data were available were used.

When the WGCTA was used as the criterion measure of

critical-thinking skills, ̂ variables (Teacher Criticism,

Sustained Student Talk, Sustained Functional Silence,

and Teacher-Talk Student-Talk Ratio) evidenced statis

tically significant relationships with the dependent


1 5 1*variable. Eight other variables (Praise and Encourage

ment, Teacher Low-Level Lecture, Teacher High-Level

Lecture, Student-Directed Response, Student-Initiated

Response, Sustained Indirect Activity, Sustained Direct

Activity, and I/D Ratio) evidenced consistent, although

non-significant, relationships with the development of

critical-thinking skills.

When the author's test was used as the criterion,

10 verbal variables (Accepts and Uses Ideas and Feelings,

Teacher Low-Level Questions, Directions, Criticism,

Student Directed Response, Student Low-Level Questions,

Sustained Indirect Activity, Sustained Non-Functional

Silence, Steady-State Behavior, and I/D Ratio) evidenced

significant relationships with the dependent variable.

Six others (Non-Functional Silence, Student-Talk Follow

ing Teacher-Talk, Silence Following Talk, Teacher-Talk,

Transitional Behavior, and Teacher-Talk Student-Talk

Ratio) evidenced consistent, although non-significant

relationships with the dependent variable.

An examination of those variables evidencing con

sistent and significant relationships with the dependent

variable of growth in critical-thinking skills indicated

that 6 of these variables are common to both criterion

measures of critical thinking. Eighteen others are

unique to only one of the tests. An examination of the


155variables showing statistically significant and consis

tent relationships with growth in critical-thinking

skills indicates that growth in critical-thinking

skills is a function of teacher behavior that increases

a student's potential for active involvement in the

teaching-learning process. These teacher behaviors are

termed "indirect behavior" by Flanders and are accompan

ied by a parallel increase in student verbal activity.

For example, classes in which high-level questioning

and lecturing techniques were used more frequently dem

onstrated greater gains in critical-thinking skills.

Similarly, other teacher behaviors that involved stu

dents directly appear to be related to the development

of critical thinking. But conclusive evidence does not

exist for specifying the exact verbal behavior or the

precise time they should be used. However, there appears

to be a relationship between the behavior that involves

the student intimately in the teaching-learning process

and the development of critical-thinking skills.

H . A factorial analysis was undertaken to examine

the joint or interacting relationships between the types

of physics curriculum and verbal behavior on the devel

opment of critical-thinking skills. Since one indepen

dent variable, the physics curriculum, is constant in

all analyses, all results were reported as being related


156to the other independent variable, verbal interaction,

although the Joint relationship was being investigated.

Two variables (Sustained Direct Activity and Sustained

Non-Functional Silence) had statistically significant

relationships with growth in critical thinking when the

WGCTA was used as the criterion measure. Eight other

variables (Praise and Encouragement, Teacher High-Level

Questions, Directions, Criticism, Student Low-Level

Questions, Student High-Level Questions, Student Talk,

and Teacher-Talk Student-Talk Ratio) were non-significant

but demonstrated relationships that were consistent with

those of the significant variables.

When the author's test was used as the criterion

measure, 10 variables (Praise and Encouragement, Teacher

Low-Level Questions, Directions, Corrective Feedback,

Student-Directed Response, Student-Initiated Response,

Sustained Indirect Activity, Sustained Non-Functional

Silence, and Steady-State Behavior) evidenced significant

relationships with development of critical thinking.

Consistent, but non-significant, relationships were also

obtained for eight other variables (Teacher Medium-Level

Lecture, Teacher-Talk Following Student-Talk, Sustained

Functional Silence, Talk Following Silence, Student Talk,

i/d Ratio, and Teacher-Talk Student-Talk Ratio).

Six of the variables with significant or consistent


relationships were common to both criterion measures.

However, when considered together, there is evidence

that indicates that the verbal variables listed above

and the physics programs, either PSSC or non-PSSC,

interact in such a way that together they are related

to the development of critical-thinking skills. This

conclusion is of particular importance, because the

singular effect of PSSC and non-PSSC physics programs

alone did not seem to be a significant factor in devel

oping critical-thinking skills. However, it appears

important to look at the independent variables together.

If the PSSC or non-PSSC physics program was considered

with those verbal variables listed above, the combined

effect resulted in significant growths in critical-

thinking skills. The implications of this finding are

clear. It appears that the teacher through his influ

ence on the verbal communication in the classroom is

probably the critical factor in the development of

critical-thinking skills. A particular program or cur

riculum is no better than the person who is directing

the teaching-learning process. Perhaps, then, the ef

forts in science education that have produced large num

bers of new science programs have emphasized too greatly

the role of content and too little the teacher and his

role in the teaching-learning process. This is not to


imply that either the various Course Content Improve

ment Programs or the teacher-training programs of the

National Science Foundation have disregarded this fac

tor. Rather, it appears that emphasis has been placed

on content development and content training more than

on the teaching process.

5. A problem ancillary to that discussed in sec

tions 3 and k above is the nature of the relationship

between teacher-pupil interaction behavior and growth

in critical-thinking abilities. Answers to this ques

tion were sought by computing coefficients of correla

tion between the mean growth score of a physics class

and the verbal variables dealt with in this study. The

coefficients of correlation ranged from +.U to -,h with

a median value of about zero. The results of the analysis

indicate generally that a linear relationship does not

exist between growth in critical-thinking skills and the

amount of time spent in various verbal behaviors. Higher

positive coefficients do exist, however, between indirect

teacher behavior and activities that promote student in

volvement, whereas lower negative correlations occur for

variables associated with extreme teacher behavior such

as criticism and irrelevant behavior. These results,

although not supported with high coefficients of corre

lation, are consistent with the findings of the previous


159sections.

6. Question 6 concerns the identification of

verbal classroom behaviors that enhance the development

of critical-thinking skills. To obtain data concerning

this question, the verbal behaviors of the 6 teachers

identified as being in the top fifth were compared with

the 6 teachers identified as being in the bottom fifth.

The results of these analyses indicated that the two

groups identified by each critical-thinking test did

not differ significantly on 63 of the 6 U comparisons

made between verbal variables. The occurrence of one

significant comparison, for the variable Teacher Talk,

did not appear to justify rejecting the hypothesis, and,

therefore, the evidence does not support the belief that

the teacher-pupil verbal interaction differed for those

classes that gained most and least in critical thinking.

The lack of statistically significant results may be due

to the lack of control over development of critical-

thinking skills outside the physics class and the sub

sequent error in identifying classes in the top and

bottom groups.

7. Another analysis similar to that in 6 above

sought to determine if PSSC and non-PSSC classes use

different verbal behaviors. A comparison was made of

the verbal behaviors of these two groups and an analysis


160of the data indicates that only one variable, Teacher

High-Level Questions, was significantly different for

these groups. Since this variable did not appear to be

supported by similar findings with other variables,

there appears to be little justification, based on this

evidence, for the belief that PSSC or non-PSSC teachers

use different verbal behaviors in their classes.

8. Another problem that was investigated dealt

with the comparison of the verbal behaviors in classes

selected subjectively by the author as being more and

less effective in developing critical-thinking skills.

The results of the analysis of the data indicated that

7 variables (Accepts and Uses Ideas and Feelings, Praise

and Encouragement, Teacher High-Level Questions, Low-

Level Lecture, High-Level Lecture, Sustained Indirect

Activity, and Teacher Talk) were significantly different

for the two groups. Several other variables evidenced

consistent, although non-significant, relationships with

these findings and, therefore, one may conclude that

these groups displayed different classroom verbal be

haviors. Caution must be used in interpreting these

findings because the verbal behaviors that were compared

may have been major factors in identifying the groups

initially. Nonetheless, there is evidence for claiming

that physics classes, chosen empirically on that basiB


l6lof promoting growth in critical thinking, do exhibit

different verbal behavior. Furt^r'.ore , the directions

of these changes are consistent vi-;h prior findings in

that the top 6 teachers wer-2 more frequently indirect

in their dealings with students and involved their

students in the teaching-learning process.

9. A l6-category Interaction Analysis Instrument

was used to record the teacher-pupil verbal classroom

communication occurring in the physics classes that were

observed. This system, a modification of a 10-category

system developed by Flanders (19^5)* was constructed by

adding, combining, and subdividing several categories of

Flanders' original system and were designed so that they

could be combined into the original categories, thus

permitting the researcher to compare his data with that

collected by others using the original system.

Reliability checks were made prior to the initial

observation and at the beginning of each subsequent month

of observation. The reliability coefficients that were

calculated ranged from .75 to .89 with a median value of

.82. The validity of observational systems is usually

dealt with in terms of "face validity." Since the pro

cess used in this study to categorize verbal acts and

responses involved mainly recognition rather than subjec

tive Judgment, face validity was accepted as existing.


162Heyns and Lippitt (195*0 stated the case for face valid

ity as that "no one seriously doubts that the score in

the category 'asks questions' represents what it is sup

posed to represent, least of all the people using the

system."

Reliability data and the successful application of

the instrument for use in this study indicated that the

instrument can be used effectively to give reliable,

objective, and detailed descriptive data concerning

verbal interaction behavior in the science classroom.

Three modifications proved particularly helpful in des

cribing specific verbal behavior and merits special com

ment. First, the division of lecture into 3 levels

based on the dynamism of the lecturer seemed significant

in identifying lecture techniques that were effective in

developing critical-thinking skills from those that were

not so effective. Category 7, particularly, appeared to

be used more frequently by teachers whose students gained

most in critical thinking.

Second, dividing teacher questions into 2 levels,

depending on the level of thinking required, was effec

tive in identifying teachers who attempted to elicit

responses requiring more than simple recall or rote

memory. Student use of higher-level questions was ex

tremely limited and hence it may not be necessary to


163divide student questions into different levels.

Finally, category 15 which separates functional

from non-functional non-verbal behavior proved to be

useful. Because of the gross nature of category 10,

the inclusive category of Flanders' original system,

it was not possible to distinguish between functional

and non-functional behavior. This modification, however,

included an additional category designed to separate

functional (category 15) from non-functional (category

16) non-verbal behavior. This modification was used

extensively and allows the investigator to examine how

a teacher uses silence and other non-verbal activities

in the classroom.

10. The tests of critical-thinking skills in this

study, the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal,

Form ZM and A Test of Critical Thinking Ability in

Physical Science. Form Z were both used to measure the

development of critical-thinking skills. An examination

of the findings in Chapter IV indicates that in most

comparisons the WGCTA evidenced considerably fewer sig

nificant comparisons than the author's test. For exam

ple, Tables XV and XVI compare the results of the analy

sis of the factorial design using each test. The WGCTA

evidenced a total of 6 significant comparisons whereas

the author's test evidenced 2k significant comparisons


16Ufrom the 96 computed for each test. An explanation for

these inconsistent findings is not readily apparent un

less one agrees with Welch (1969) that the WGCTA

"measures qualities that are learned throughout a life

time and that seem to be scarcely affected by the short-

time instruction that is typically evaluated." It is

the opinion of the author that the scores on the WGCTA

may be influenced greatly by reading ability and that

short-term gains in critical thinking may be indistin

guishable. Similarly, the general nature of the content

of the WGCTA is not particularly well suited to measure

gains in critical-thinking skills developed in the con

text of physical-science content.

11. Techniques used in this study to minimize the

effect of the observer’s presence in the classroom were

(l) initial non-data gathering visits, (2) unannounced

visits, and (3) apprising teachers of all the data col

lected and the results compiled. These techniques appear

to be successful in reducing the threat associated with

observation and in improving the validity of the verbal

interaction data collected. The first technique, non

data gathering visits, is necessary, in the author's

opinion, for the validity of the initial data. The se

cond technique was also useful in collecting valid data,

particularly because it prevented the teacher from


165preparing for an observational visit and it impressed

upon the teachers the need for the investigator to ob

serve typical classroom sessions. Initial apprehensions

concerning the chances of making too many visits in

which data could not be collected were not realized and

the number of visits in which data could not be collected

amounted to less than 5 per cent of the total visits.

The third technique, apprising the teacher of all data

collected in his class, was a courtesy to the teacher

and appeared to be a successful technique for developing

interest in the study and maintaining rapport with the

sample teachers.

12. Initially extensive efforts were made to soli

cit the cooperation of the sample schools and teachers.

These efforts included several letters, e paper des

cribing the study, and visits to the principal and the

physics teacher for the purposes of describing the study

and requesting their cooperation. It was thought that

these techniques were important factors in gaining co

operation and in developing rapport with the administra

tion and teachers of the sample schools. The extent to

which these efforts were responsible for the cooperation

which was obtained is impossible to determine. However,

the cooperation which resulted was excellent and there

is little doubt that these efforts contributed markedly


to the validity of the data collected and the rapport

established with the teachers involved.

Recommendations for the Improvement of Critical-Thinking Skills

The following recommendations for developing

critical-thinking skills in the science classroom are

based on the findings of this study and the impressions

and observations derived from visiting the schools from

which the data were obtained.

1. Science teachers may be able to improve

critical-thinking skills in their students by being

more conscious of this goal when they prepare lessons,

select problem exercises and laboratory experiments,

and construct tests.

2. Critical-thinking skills may be improved by

increasing student involvement in the problem-solving

process. In this respect, teachers must make sure that

students do more than passively observe the teacher or

another student solve a problem. Every student must be

come involved actively in the processes of problem

solving and share the excitement and frustrations of

"thinking through a problem.” The use of indirect be

haviors can be useful in helping students feel more com

xortable in the frustrating processes involved in

problem-solving and critical thinking.


1673. In some cases, teachers may improve their stu

dents' critical-thinking skills by identifying and using

more divergent, evaluative and speculative questions.

The failure of teachers to make effective use of higher-

level questions in their physics teaching was apparent.

For example, teachers did not ask many questions in

class that required the student to synthesize and ver

balize ideas or concepts. Often the questions that re

quire this type of thinking were avoided, apparently

because they do not have answers which are clearly de

fined and unambiguous. In this respect, speculative

questions that have neither definite answers or pre

scribed limits were seldom used. Yet, these types of

questions help students develop the process objectives

of science instruction and become more effective thinkers.

U. Physics teachers may improve critical-thinking

skills in their stuaents by making more extensive use of

high-level lecture. The analysis of the data indicates

that lecture techniques differ and that standing in

front of a class reading notes or "talking to i.he black

board" is not as effective in developing critical think

ing as a lecture that involves the students and conveys

the excitement of science as well as its content. As an

illustration, the teacher may solve a problem during a

lecture in which the student learns only how to watch


168another person solve a problem. Or, the teacher can in

volve the student in the process by showing him not only

how to obtain an answer, but also why this move was made

and another was not. Pointing out to the students

during problem sessions the important landmarks and

connecting links between landmarks can be an effective

means of communicating critical-thinking skills.

5. Critical-thinking skills may be improved in the

physics classroom by using historical examples concern

ing the identification and solution of classic problems

of science. Few, if any, instances were observed where

a teacher made use of this technique either to teach

methods of problem-solving or to teach the historical

development of physics. For example, the study of

mechanics could involve the historical development of

the concept of motion from the time of Aristotle,

Galileo, and Newton to the present modern concepts in

cluding relativity. Here the students study the devel

opment of a scientific concept in terms of the problems

existing during the different periods and the frustra

tions that affected the original investigators. This

approach can be effectively used in developing an ap

preciation for the tentative nature of scientific find

ings and the excitement associated with original thinking.

6. Physics teachers may develop critical-thinking


169skills effectively in their students by constructing

tests that reflect goals other than recall. One tech

nique used effectively by two teachers was the open-

book test. This technique impressed on the students

that the goals of the course were not only to develop

factual knowledge and recall skills, but also to develop

critical-thinking and problem-solving skills. This

technique forces the teacher to prepare a test that

reflects the goals of critical thinking and to de-

emphasize objectives related to memory and recall.

Recommendations for Further Research

Because this study was to some extent exploratory,

part of its significance to science education concerns

implications for further research. Additional data

obtained to replicate all or parts of this study would

be useful in order to check the validity and extend the

findings of this study. Four areas of research in which

emphasis should be placed and which are logical exten

sions of this research are these:

1. An examination of the specific categories of

response that teachers use to student statements would

be useful to determine how teachers respond and how much

time is spent in verbal activities that reinforce student

talk. Of particular interest are the behaviors that

teachers use to respond to student-initiated response


170and student questions.

2. An experiment that compensates for the con

comitant development of critical-thinking skills in

other classes, particularly those in other sciences and

mathematics, would be a logical extension of this study.

The opinion is held by the investigator that this may

have been a primary source of variance which prevented

the proper identification of those physics classes which

were most and least effective in developing critical-

thinking skills.

3. An effort to investigate the effect that se

quential patterns of verbal interaction have on the

development of critical-thinking skills would be useful.

For example, certain patterns of responding to student

questions may be more effective in promoting the devel

opment of critical thinking than others, or certain pat

terns of lecture followed by questions might be more

effective for some teachers whereas student-initiated

response following lecture might be more useful for

others.

U. A test that individually examines specific

skills that are usually classified under critical thinks

ing, such as observing, classifying, and making hypoth

eses, may be more effective in identifying those verbal

behaviors related to that skill than a test that groups


these skills. The universe of skills included under

the term "critical thinking" is so broad and impre

cisely defined that it may be impossible to identify

one verbal variable that is singularly effective for

developing critical-thinking skills.


APPENDIX A


173

February 17 « 1969

Dear (Teacher's Name):

This study being undertaken by Mr. Robert Poel, is in my opinion of great importance to science education.At Western Michigan University, ve have been working closely with both inexperienced and experienced science teachers in regular advanced degree programs as well as those supported by the National Science Foundation.Hence, we are interested in determining how well these programs serve their stated purposes and how they may be improved.

Mr. Poel's study is one step in an effort to obtain information from physics teachers in the Southern Michigan area about the programs they teach, including the traditional ones as well as the experimental ones supported by the National Science Foundation. Obviously, the major source of valid information is the high-school teacher of physics. Without your help the information cannot be gathered. Thus, we hope you will be willing to help provide the information by filling out the enclosed form.

Your assistance will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

George G. Mallinson, Dean School of Graduate Studies Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan U9001


17UFebruary 17* 1969


I am sure that you are aware of the various programs and problems of high-school physics which have been publicized and discussed in the past ten years.The National Science Foundation and other private and public agencies have invested millions of dollars and thousands of man hours in order to train new teachers, to refresh experienced teachers, to develop new science programs, and to provide adequate laboratory and classroom equipment.

The Science Education Division of Western Michigan University is interested in determining the effect of these programs and monies on the physics programs and enrollments in Southern Michigan. Obviously, the high schools and physicB teachers are the only source of these data.

You and every other high school physics teacher within approximately 100 miles of Kalamazoo are being asked to provide this information by responding to the enclosed form. This questionnaire takes between 5 and 10 minutes to complete; and a self-addressed, stamped envelope is included. I would like to ask you to serve as a source of data.

Since you may be interested in the results of this inquiry, you will receive a summary of the data when it is compiled. Naturally, any information received from you or your school will be treated with the strictest confidence. If your school does not offer physics, please indicate this and the name of the school and return the form.

Since you and your fellow physics teachers of Michigan are the only valid source of this data, I would appreciate hearing from you soon.

Thank you,

Robert H. Poel Science Education Division Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan U9001


175

Please return in the enclosed envelope to:

Mr. Robert H. Poel Science Education Chemistry Department Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan U9OOI

PHYSICS PROGRAMS IN SOUTHERN MICHIGAN

Please respond to all the items on the sheets that follow. All responses will be kept confidential and you will receive a summary of the results.

I . School Information

1. Name of School_

2. School Address^

City

3. Physics Teacher'sN awe

I4. What is your total high school enrollment? (approximate) ___________________________________

5. What grades are included in your high school?

(Please check) 7 ______ 8 _______ 9 ______

10 11 12 _____

II. Physics Classes:

1. Does your school offer physics on a yearly or on an alternate year basis?

Yearly _____ Alternate Year ________

2. If the answer is "Alternate Year," are you teaching physics this year?

Yes _____ No _____


176

3. How many physics classes are you teaching?

1 _____ 2 3 U 5 6_____

U. What is the total number of students enrolled in physics in your school this year? _________

III. Physics Teachers:

1. a) How many years of teaching experience haveyou had?

Less than 2 years _____ 2-5 years _____

6-10 years _____ 10-20 years _____

Over 20 years ______

b) For how many years have you taught physics?

Less than 2 years _____ 2-5 years ______

6-10 years _____ 10-20 years _____

Over 20 years _____

2. a) Have you participated in any NSF SummerInstitutes in physics?

Yes ____ No_____

b) If e o , in how many? ______

c) Have you attended any NSF In-Service or Academic Year Institutes dealing entirely or partly with physics?

In-Service Institutes Yes _____ No _____

Academic Year Institutes Yes _____ No _____

d) If so, where and for how many hours of credit?_________________________ _____


177e) Have you taken any courses not supported "by

the NSF for academic credit within the past 3 years?

Yes _____ No______

f) If so, in which of these areas?

Physics ______ Chemistry _____ Mathematics ___

Education _____ Other (please specify) _____

3. a) Do you have an undergraduate major or its equivalent (30 hours) in physics?

Yes No

b) If the answer to 3a is "no," do you have an undergraduate minor or its equivalent (20 hours) in physics?

Yes No

c) In which of these areas do you have a Master's degree?

Physics Education

Other (please state)

k. a) What other subjects do you commonly teach in addition to physics?

Chemistry Biology

Earth Science

Physical Science

Other (specify)

General Science

Mathematics

b) Do you teach, or does your school offer, any specialized physics courses such as physics for vocational students?

Yes No


178

c) If so, briefly describe it

IV. Program Information:

1. Title and author(s) of physics text(s) being used:

2. How would you evaluate the equipment (both laboratory and demonstration) and classroom facilities of your school in physics?

Excellent ________ Good _____ Adequate _____

Below Average _____ Poor _____

3. How many individual laboratory sessions accompany your courses in physics?

None ______ Less than 1/month ______ Less than

1/two weeks ____ Less than l/week _____

About 1/week _____ About 2/week _____

More than 2/week _____

1*. Please rate your total physics program on the following continuums by placing an X at the appropriate point. Note: Each scale is independent of the other ones and should not be considered except in terms of its end members. No connotation of good or bad is intended or implied between the two extremes of each scale.

a) Lecture Problemoriented oriented

J---------- 1---------- 1 .«---------- 1---------- L


179

b) Discussionoriented

Lectureoriented

• i 1 i _ i

c ) Lectureoriented

Laboratoryoriented

* ■ « « ■ « *

d) Teacher Studentdemonstration laboratory

l I ■ I I . ,1 ■ I I I I. I, I I ■! II I I

e) Investigative, Highly strucdiscovery, 'open tured 'verifiended' type of cation' typelaboratory of laboratory

■ - « - - « «

f) Teacher talking Student talking(lecturing, ex (questioning,plaining, demonstrating , etc. )

discussing, etc

i i . ■ -J -, ■ ---- 1-- ----- i ............ ■ ■■


APPENDIX B


181

March 2k t 1969

Dear (Principal's Name):

The study being undertaken by Mr. Robert Poel under my direction is, in my opinion, extremely significant. After the investment of more than 20 million dollars in efforts to improve the program of physics in high schools in the United States, ve find that enrollments have dropped both in number and percentage of high-school attendance. Obviously, no one study will solve the situation. But, this effort may provide information that contributes to a solution.

We certainly don't expect any miracles within the next two or three years in improving the situation. However, cooperation of persons such as yourself and your physics teacher or teachers will certainly be of great assistance. I hope that it will be possible for your school to participate.

Sincerely,

George G. Mallinson, Dean School of Graduate Studies Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan 1*9001


182

March 2U, 1969

Dear (Principal's Name):

The Division of Science Education of Western Michigan University is extremely concerned with the declining enrollments in physics in the high schools throughout the United States. No one has yet been able to ascertain what the causes may be. An effort is now being made at Western Michigan University to investigate schools of Michigan in the hopes of identifying some of the causes. This, of course, will require assistance of some of the physics teachers in these schools. We are writing this letter to inquire about the interest of your phyBics teacher or teachers in participating in this study during the 1969-70 school year.

During the last 15 years a number of efforts have been made to modernize high school physics. These curriculum projects supported by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Education have had available millions of dollars of public funds. Nevertheless, reliable information concerning students and teacher behavior in the physics classroom is relatively sparse. We believe that investigation of some of these behaviors may make it possible to seek solutions for the declining enrollment s.

In this investigation, an effort will be made to attack the questions, "What is the nature of the teaching process in physics?" and "What is the relationship between the teaching process and critical thinking?" In seeking these answers, observations will be made of physics programs in a sampling of high schools in southwestern Michigan. The data gathered during the observations will be classified according to a modification of the Flanders Interaction Analysis System. The study does not involve evaluations of any teachers or schools and no changes will be required in regular classroom procedures. All participants will remain anonymous.


183

- 2-

We are writing this letter to inquire vhether you and your physics teacher or teachers might he willing to participate in this study. Before we proceed, we would like to ask your permission to write your physics teacher a letter similar to this one describing the study. In addition, we would like to arrange a conference with you and the physics teacher on a date that is mutually satisfactory to describe the study and to ask for your cooperation. If such an arrangement is satisfactory with you, please check the enclosed self-addressed postcard and return it to me.

Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Poel Science Education Chemistry Department Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan U90OI


18U

March 2 h , 1969


Your principal has recently received a letter from the Division of Science Education at Western Michigan University concerning a proposed research study which we would like to conduct in the 1969-70 school year.In this letter we described our concern with the declining enrollments in physics in the high school and the fact that no one has yet been able to ascertain its cause. An effort is now being made at Western Michigan University to investigate some facets of the present physics programs in Michigan in hopes of identifying some of the causes. This, of course, will require the assistance of some of the physics teachers in the high schools.

During the last 15 years, as you no doubt are aware, a number of efforts have been made to modernize high school physics. These curriculum projects supported by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Education have had available millions of dollars of public funds. Nevertheless, reliable information concerning students and teacher behavior in the physics classroom is relatively sparse. We believe that investigation of some of these behaviors may make it possible to seek solutions for the declining enrollments.

In this investigation, an effort will be made to attack the questions, "What is the nature of the teaching process in physics?" and "What is the relationship between the teaching process and critical thinking?" In seeking these answers, observations will be made of physics programs in a sampling of high schools in southwestern Michigan. The data gathered during the observations will be classified according to a modification of the Flanders Interaction Analysis System. The study does not involve evaluations of any teachers or schoo3.s and no changes will be required in regular classroom procedures. All participants will remain anonymous.


185

- 2-

Wc are writing this letter to inform you of our concern and to request a conference at a date which is mutually satisfactory when we could describe the study to you and your principal and ask for your cooperation. If you will contact your principal concerning this, we will telephone his office and set up a conference.

Your cooperation will be appreciated.

Sincerely,

Robert H. Poel Science Education Chemistry Department Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan U9OOI


A P P E N D IX C


187

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

A. General Design

This study is focused on the high-school physics

program. A major objective is to examine some of

the causes of the declining physics enrollments.

To accomplish this, the study vill include system

atic observations of several physics programs in

southwestern Michigan. Since the high-school

classroom is the only valid place to gather this

data, several physics classrooms will be observed

in an objective fashion. No teacher or school will

be rated or Judged in any way. Some testing of

students will be necessary to measure and analyze

thinking ability.

B , Procedures

1. Observations: A sample of 2k physics classes

and their teachers in 2h schools of a l6-county region (surrounding Kalamazoo) will be observed.

The sample will be a select group of classrooms

designed to represent physics classes and

teachers in general.

a) One class of each participating teacher will

be observed a minimum of 10 times during the

1969-70 school year. All observations will


188

be made by Mr. Robert H. Poel, a former high

school physics teacher, and will be randomly

made throughout the school year.

b) No procedures or other classroom activities

are to be changed for the observer. He will

simply want to observe the classroom as "it

ordinarily is."

c) Each teacher will be told of the approximate

time of each visit; however, no rigid sched

ule will be observed in order to maintain

maximum flexibility and to allow the re

searcher to plan around the teacher's sched

ule rather than vice versa.

2. Testing: All test materials will be provided by

the Science Education Division of Western Michi

gan University. They will be mailed to the

teachers with return postage. Teachers are asked

to administer the following tests:

а) Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal Form Z M , Harcourt. Brace and World, 19Û.

б) Test of Critical Thinking Ability in Physical Science Form Z , constructed by the Science Education Division of Western Michigan University..

Each test requires 1 class period to administer

and must be administered in September and May of

the 1969-70 school year. Thus, U class periods


of 50 minutes are required for testing.

3* Other: The following is also requested: access

to the student records or the following informa

tion:

a) Latest I.Q. score.

b) Previous science courses and achievement of

each student.

All the above data will be considered completely

confidential and complete anonymity can be as

sured.

C. In return for the teacher's and school's cooperation

and assistance as outline above, the Science Educa

tion Division will render the following services:

1. Summary reports of the study will be produced

and delivered as soon as the data has been ana

lyzed (2 copies per school— more if requested).

2. Teachers will receive pre, post, and gain scores

for all their students on the two tests above.

Pre-test scores will be available by November

1969 and post-test and gain scores by June 1970.

A letter of interpretation will accompany all

data (2 copies per school— more if requested).

3. Each teacher will receive 2 copies of the Test

of Critical Thinking Abilities in Physical

Science Form Z with a summary of its potential


190

U B 6 .

U. Other requests which do not conflict with the

experimental design will be considered and

granted if possible.

D . Science Education Division and Research Personal Vita

1. Head of Science Education Division -

Dr. Paul Holkeboer Chemistry Department Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan 1*9001

2. Project Advisor - Dr. George G. Mallinson, Dean School of Graduate Studies Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan U9OOI

3. Principal Investigator - Mr. Robert H. PoelScience Education Chemistry Department

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan h9001

Home Address:

Telephone:

Age :

Status:

Education:

728 Douglas Avenue Kalamazoo, Michigan 1*9007 FI9-UU02 (collect calls accepted)

28 years old

Married and no children

BA, Kalamazoo College, 1962MA, Western Michigan University, 196UCurrently working on a Ph.D. at

Western Michigan University in Science Education

Experience: 3 years of physics and mathematicsteaching at Battle Creek Central High School, Battle Creek, Mich.

2 years of laboratory teaching at Western Michigan University in connection with an associateship.


A P P E N D IX D


192

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING A TEST OF CRITICAL THINKING ABILITY IN PHYSICAL SCIENCE

The teacher will need: The student will need:

1. A test booklet.2. An answer sheet.3. Supply of spare pencils.U. A copy of these instruc-

1. A test booklet.2. An answer sheet3. A pencil and a

clean erasert ions

Read aloud to the students the directions printed below in capitals and indented. Use your natural classroom voice and read it exactly as given. Be sure that all necessary supplies are on hand prior to the beginning of the test.

After distributing all necessary materials say:

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION. EACH OF YOU HAS BEEN GIVEN A TEST BOOKLET AND ANSWER SHEET. YOU MUST USE ONLY A SOFT LEAD PENCIL IN MARKING THE ANSWER SHEET. IF YOU NEED A PENCIL I HAVE SOME SPARES.

DO NOT OPEN THE TEST BOOKLET UNTIL I SAY SO. PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ON THE UPPER LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE ANSWER SHEET. BY COURSE. SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF YOUR SCHOOL AND FOR NAME OF TEST SUBSTITUTE TODAYS DATE.

Pause. When all the information nas been filled in on the/answer sheet say:

THIS TEST CONTAINS U8 MULTIPLE CHOICE ITEMS RELATED TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. THE TEST IS DESIGNED TO FIND OUT HOW WELL YOU CAN REASON AND SOLVE PROBLEMS. EACH SITUATION IS PRECEDED BY A BRIEF PARAGRAPH DESCRIBING THE SITUATION OR PROBLEM. WHEN I TELL YOU TO BEGIN, READ CAREFULLY THE SITUATION OR PROBLEM. YOU MAY FIND IT NECESSARY TO REREAD THE DISCUSSION AND PROBLEMS MORE THAN ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTIONS, RAISE YOUR HAND AND I WILL EXPLAIN THEM TO YOU. DO NOT MAKE ANY MARKS IN THE TEST BOOKLET.

Pause


193FOR EACH QUESTION, DECIDE WHAT YOU THINK IS THE BEST OR CORRECT ANSWER. THEN RECORD YOUR ANSWER BY MAKING A BLACK MARK IN THE APPROPRIATE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET. NOTE THAT THE ANSWER SHEET IS NUMBERED ACROSS THE PAGE AND NOT DOWN THE PAGE IN COLUMNS. IF YOU REQUIRE SCRATCH PAPER YOU MAY USE THE BOTTOM HALF AND THE ENTIRE REVERSE SIDE OF THE ANSWER SHEET. IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT AN ANSWER, BE SURE TO ERASE THE FIRST MARK COMPLETELY. YOU MAY ANSWER A QUESTION EVEN WHEN YOU ARE NOT PERFECTLY SURE THAT YOUR ANSWER IS CORRECT, BUT YOU SHOULD AVOID WILD GUESSING. DO NOT SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON ANY ONE QUESTION. WHEN YOU FINISH BEFORE TIME IS UP, GO BACK AND CHECK YOUR ANSWERS. WORK RAPIDLY AND ACCURATELY.

YOU WILL BE ALLOWED THE ENTIRE CLASS PERIOD FOR THIS TEST. THIS IS AMPLE TIME FOR MOST OF YOU TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION WITHOUT HURRYING IF YOU DO NOT TAKE TOO LONG ON ANY ONE QUESTION. WHEN YOU ARE FINISHED YOU MAY GO BACK AND CHECK YOUR WORK.

REMEMBER, YOU ARE TO START READING THE DIRECTIONS FOR THE TEST WHEN I TELL YOU TO START AND CONTINUE WORKING UNTIL I TELL YOU TO STOP. IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE AN ANSWER, ERASE COMPLETELY. MAKE NO MARKS ON THE TEST BOOKLET. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE BEGIN?

ALL RIGHT NOW, OPEN YOUR BOOKLET AND BEGIN.

Give the group as much time to finish the test as you can. This is not a speed test and therefore everyone should be allowed to finish if possible. The person administering the test should handle this testing situation in the same way he handles the ordinary testing situation in his class. When time has finally been called, collect all the test materials and paper clip the answer sheets together by class section. Return all of the answer sheets in the self-addressed, stamped envelope. The test booklets and other test materials will be picked up at a later date by Robert Poel during his initial observation visits.


19 ̂

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADMINISTERING THE WATSON-GLASER CRITICAL THINKING APPRAISAL

The teacher will need: The students will need:

1. A test booklet.2. An answer sheet.3. Supply of spare pencils.U. A copy of these instruo-

1. A test booklet.2. An answer sheet.3. A pencil and a clean

eraser.t ions

Read aloud to the students the directions below printed in capitals and indented. Use your natural classroom voice and read it exactly as given. Be sure that all necessary supplies are on hand prior to the beginning of the test.

After distributing all necessary materials say:

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION. EACH OF YOU HAS BEEN GIVEN A TEST BOOKLET AND ANSWER SHEET. YOU MUST USE ONLY A SOFT LEAD PENCIL IN MARKING THE ANSWER SHEET. IF YOU NEED A PENCIL I HAVE SOME SPARES.

DO NOT OPEN THE TEST BOOKLET UNTIL I SAY SO. PLEASE FILL IN THE INFORMATION REQUIRED ON THE UPPER LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE ANSWER SHEET. BY AGE, SUBSTITUTE THE HOUR YOUR CLASS MEETS AND FOR OTHER SUBSTITUTE YOU TEACHERS NAME.

Pause. When all the information has been filled in onthe answer sheet say:

THIS TEST CONTAINS FIVE TYPES OF TESTS DESIGNED TO FIND OUT HOW WELL YOU ARE ABLE TO REASON LOGICALLY AND ANALYTICALLY. EACH TEST IS PRECEDED BY ITS OWN DIRECTIONS. WHEN I TELL YOU TO BEGIN, READ CAREFULLY THE DIRECTIONS FOR THE FIRST TEST AND STUDY THE SAMPLE QUESTIONS UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TO DO. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTIONS, RAISE YOUR HAND AND I WILL EXPLAIN THEM TO YOU. DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT A TEST AFTER YOU HAVE STARTED WORK ON IT. DON'T MAKE ANY MARKS ON THE TEST BOOKLET.

Pause


195

FOR EACH QUESTION, DECIDE WHAT YOU THINK IS THE BEST ANSWER. THEN RECORD YOUR CHOICE BY MAKING A BLACK MARK IN THE APPROPRIATE SPACE ON THE ANSWER SHEET. ALWAYS BE SURE THAT THE ANSWER SPACE IS NUMBERED THE SAME AS THE QUESTION IN THE BOOKLET. DO NOT MAKE ANY OTHER MARKS ON THE ANSWER SHEET. IF YOU CHANGEYOUR MIND ABOUT AN ANSWER, BE SURE TO ERASE THEFIRST MARK COMPLETELY. YOU MAY ANSWER A QUESTION EVEN WHEN YOU ARE NOT PERFECTLY SURE THAT YOUR ANSWER IS CORRECT, BUT YOU SHOULD AVOID WILD GUESSING. DO NOT SPEND TOO MUCH TIME ON ANY ONE QUESTION.WHEN YOU FINISH A PAGE, GO RIGHT ON TO THE NEXT ONE. IF YOU FINISH ALL THE TESTS BEFORE TIME IS UP, GO BACK AND CHECK YOUR ANSWERS. WORK RAPIDLY AND ACCURATELY .

YOU WILL BE ALLOWED 12 MINUTES FOR THE FIRST TEST. THIS IS AMPLE TIME FOR MOST OF YOU TO ANSWER EVERY QUESTION WITHOUT HURRYING IF YOU DO NOT TAKE TOO LONG ON ANY ONE QUESTION. WHEN YOU FINISH TEST 1,GO RIGHT ON TO TEST 2 WITHOUT WAITING.

SO THAT YOU WILL HAVE A GUIDE IN SPACING YOUR TIME,I AM GOING TO STOP ANY ONE OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT FINISHED EACH TEST IN THE USUAL TIME AND START YOU ONTHE NEXT TEST. THOSE WHO RUN A BIT SHORT OF TIME ON SOME TESTS MAY HAVE TIME LEFT AT THE END. WHEN YOUFINISH TEST 5, THE LAST TEST, YOU CAN GO BACK ANDANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT YOU SKIPPED OR CHECK YOUR ANSWERS TO THE OTHER QUESTIONS. IF YOU FINISH A TEST BEFORE TIME IS CALLED, GO ON TO THE NEXT TEST.

REMEMBER, YOU ARE TO START READING THE DIRECTIONS FOR TEST 1 WHEN I TELL YOU TO START AND CONTINUE WORKING THROUGH THE SUCCESSIVE TESTS UNTIL I TELL YOU TO STOP. IF YOU WISH TO CHANGE AN ANSWER, ERASE COMPLETELY. MAKE NO MARKS ON THE TEST BOOKLET. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE BEGIN?

ALL RIGHT NOW, OPEN YOUR BOOKLET AND BEGIN.

In order to insure that even the slowest persons attempt most of the items in each of the subtest, the examiner should note the starting time, successively add the times suggested below for each test, and as each finishing time arrives say:

IF YOU ARE STILL WORKING ON TEST_____, STOP AND GO ONTO TEST_____. YOU MAY GO BACK AND FINISH LATER IF YOUNEED MORE TIME.


196

TEST SUGGESTED TIME

1. Inference 12 minutes

2. Recognition of Assumptions 5 tt

3. Deduction 10U. Interpretation 11 II

5. Evaluation of Arguments 7 ft

Total 1+5 minutes

Give the group as much time to finish the test as you can. This is not a speed test and therefore everyone should be allowed to finish if possible. The person administering the test should handle this testing situation in the same way he handles the ordinary testing situation in his class. When time has finally been called, collect all the test materials and paper clip the answer sheets together by class section. Return all of the answer sheets in the self-addressed, stamped envelope. The test booklets and other test materials will be picked up at a later date by Robert Poel during his initial observation visits.


APPENDIX E


198

A TEST OF CRITICAL THINKING ABILITY IN

PHYSICAL S_CIENCE

Form Z

Directions: This "booklet contains U8 multiple choiceitems related to several different situations. The test is designed to find out how well you can think and solve problems. The test is scored on the number of correct answers only, and therefore, educated guesses are advisable. If you complete the test before the end of the period, you may return and review any questions.

Do not turn this page until instructed to do so.

Do not make any mark on this test booklet.

Use a pencil only in marking the answer on the Answer Sheet.

Place all your answers in the separate Answer Sheet provided, and note that the answers go across the page.

If you wish to change an answer, be sure to erase your old answer completely.


199PROBLEMS #1-#1U

Problems 1-lU refer to the graph below, The graph was constructed by plotting the atmospheric pressure at sea level and at 1,000 foot intervals, and then drawing a line through these points.

Pressure versus Altitude

16000

150001U0001300012000

t! 110001000090008000700060005000 ,

1*000

300020001000

C Oc\j

coOJ Chcut— OC O

CVJCVJ O J

N OO J

coI—J O N O

O JLfN ITN

O JrH O J

Atmospheric Pressure in inches of mercury on a barometer


200

Directions: On the Answer Sheet, evaluate each of thefollowing 15 statements by marking one of the numbers below based on the definition given.

1. True The information given here proves conclusively the statement is true.

2. Probably The information given here indicates thatTrue the statement is likely to be true, but is

not sufficient to prove its truth.

3. Insuf- There is not sufficient information givenficient here to indicate whether there is any de-Evidence gree of truth or falsity in the statement.

U . Probably The information given here indicates thatFalse the statement is likely to be false, but is

not sufficient to prove its falsity.

5. False The information given here proves conclusively that the statement is false.

Remember, the answers that you give must be based upon the information given in the discussion and graph.

1. Seventeen points were plotted to produce the graph.

2. The atmospheric pressure at 17,000 feet is more than 16 inches of mercury.

3. The graph shows the atmospheric pressure at 7,000 feet as approximately 23 pounds per square inch.

k. The atmospheric pressures recorded are the average of several taken at the same time.

5. Plotting atmospheric pressures for every 500 feet and drawing a line through these points will result in a graph line almost the same as the one based on 1,000 foot readings.

6. The atmospheric pressure decreases the same amount for every 1,000 foot increase in elevation above sea level.

7. Between 16,000 feet and 20,000 feet altitude, the graph line will show a rather marked change in direction.


201

8. There are no readings over 16,000 feet because the recorders were unable to reach a higher altitude with their equipment.

9. An extension of the graph line off from the graph to represent atmospheric pressure in an open mine below sea level will show a marked change in direction.

10. The atmospheric pressure at 32,000 feet will be three inches of mercury.

11. The atmospheric pressure at 11,000 feet is two- thirds that at sea level.

12. Another graph constructed in a similar manner at another location will show somewhat the same changes in atmosperic pressure as elevation increases.

13. The atmospheric pressure at 0 feet below sea level is approximately twice as great as at IT,000 feet above sea level.

lU. If a person accurately measured the atmosphericpressure at an elevation of 9*500 feet on the day and place the graph was made, he would have found it to be 21 inches of mercury.

Note: The preceding situation and items wereadapted from a sample problem reported by Dunning (1951*).


202

PROBLEMS #15-027Problems 15-27 refer to the following discussion anddiagrams. You may wish to go back and reread thediscussion and study the diagrams more than once.Consider a cube, illustrated below, which has a length of 1 inch on a side. It is called Cube #1. Cube #2, also illustrated below, is made up of eight (8) cubes identical to Cube #1. This structure has 2 cubes along each edge and is called Cube #2. Likewise, Cube #3 had 3 cubes along each edge, each one identical to Cube #1. Similarly, Cube Cube #5, and so on could be builtfrom combinations of Cube #1. Cube #N would then have n cubes along each edge.

B| Cube #1I

1— J,J— 1< r

i/1r

Cube#2

15. How many #1 cubes are there in Cube #N? _ 31.

2. 3. k. 5.

3"3<n + 1)3n + 2None of the above

The area of a square is the length of a side multiplied by the length of a side (i.e., A » s x s o r A = s 2 where s is the length of a side).


203

16. What is the total surface area of Cube #1?

1. 1 square inch2. 3 square inches3. U square inchesU. 8 square inches5. None of the above

17. The total surface area of Cube #10 is:

1. 800 square inches2. 600 square inches3. 300 square inchesU. 100 square inches5. None of the above

18. The total surface area of Cube #N is:

1. 6n square inches22. 6n square inches

3. 6n square inches2U. 8n square inches35. 8n square inches

19. Cube #10 is subdivided into #5 cubes (i.e., cubesof length 5 inches on a side). How many #5 cubesare there in Cube #10?

1.2. 63. 8H. 95. None of the above

20. What is the ratio of the total surface of the #5cubes to the #10 cube of the previous question? Remember that you are dealing with all of the #5 cubes coming from the #10 cube.

1. 1:12. 2:13. U:1h. 1:2 5. lik


201*

21. If Cube #10 is broken down into its component cubes (i.e., #1 cubes), what is the ratio of the total surface area of the #1 cubes to the #10 cube ?

1. 1,000:12. 100:13 . 60:1U. 10:15. 1:1

22. One of the #5 cubes contained in a #10 cube isremoved. How is the total surface area of theremaining solid affected?

1. Remains the same2. Increases3. DecreasesU. Increases by 5 square inches5. Decreases by 5 square inches

23. One of the #1 cubes contained in a #10 cube isremoved. How is the total surface area of theremaining solid affected?

1. Remains the same2. Increases3. Decreasesu. Increases or remains the

which #1 cube is removedsame depending upon

5. Decreases or remains the which #1 cube is removed

same depending upon

The volume of a cube is the length of a side of the cube multiplied by the length of a side, which is in turn multiplied by the length of a side of the cube (i.e., V = s x s x s o r V = s ^ where s is the length of a side of the cube).

2U. What is the volume of Cube #10?

1. n2 cubic inches32. lOn cubic inches33. lOOn cubic inches

3U. l,000n cubic inches 5. None of the above


205

25. How does the total volume of a 010 cube compare with the total volume of the 05 cubes which make up the 010 cube?

1. Cube 010 has 2 times the volume of the combination of 05 cubes.

2. Cube 010 has U times the volume of the combination of 05 cubes.

3. Cube 010 has h the volume of the combinationof 05 cubes.

U . Cube 010 has h the volume of the combination of 05 cubes.

5. The volume is the same in both cases.

If exposed to water, the material of which the cubes are made will dissolve. Suppose also that the speed of dissolving is proportional to the surface area and volume (i.e., given equal volumes, 2 times as much surface will dissolve twice as fast, 3 times as much surface area will dissolve 3 times as fast, etc.).

26. Which of the following will dissolve the fastest?Note, they are of equal volume.

1. A 010 cube2. 1,000 cubes 1 inch by 1 inch by 1 inch3. 8 cubes 5 inches by 5 inches by 5 inchesk, 125 cubes 2 inches by 2 inches by 2 inches5. All of the above will decompose at the same

rate27. How many additional 01 cubes are required to change

a 0N cube into a 0N + 1 cube?

1. 2n2 - 12. 2n2 + 13. 2n2 + 2n + 1U. 3n2 + 3n 15. None of the above


206

PROBLEMS 028-#3OProblems 28-30 refer to the discussion below. You maywish to go back and reread the discussion more than once.

A student is attempting to calibrate a double pan equal arm balance which he has obtained by comparing its readings with 5 known masses. The data below shows the results of this comparison.

Known Masses Scale Readings of Instrument(K) il}_____________

0.00 unit s 0. 001.00 uni t s 0.502.00 unit s 2. 00k. 00 units 8.006.00 unit s 18. 00

28. If a known quantity of 5.00 units is measured by the instrument, what would it read?

1. 12.02. 12.53. 13,0h. 13.55 • None of the above

29. If the instrument gives a reading of U.50 for a particular quantity, what is the actual measurement of that quantity?

1. 3.00 units2. 3.25 unit s3. 3.50 unitsU . 2.50 unit s5. 2.75 units

30. Which of the formulas below correctly expresses the observed relationship between known quantities (K) and the instruments reading (l) of mass? (C is a constant and <* means proportional to)

I. I « KII. I « K2

III. I * CK2IV. I = C/K2


207

30. (continued)1. I only2. II only3. Ill onlyU. II and III only 5. II and IV only


208

PROBLEMS #31-#36

Problems 31-36 refer to the following discussion anddiagram. You may wish to go back and reread the discussion and study the diagram more than once.

Sc reen

path of bullets

machinegun

Revolving cylinder of diameter D

The diagram above shows a machine gun firing "bullets" at a cylinder. This cylinder has a diameter D and is capable of being rotated. When the cylinder is not rotating and in the position pictured above, all of the "bullets" will enter the cylinder. Under these conditions, all of the "bullets" will strike the inside of the cylinder at point b.

31. Assume the speed of the "bullets" does not vary.Also assume that the diameter of the cylinder is doubled to 2D. How much longer will it take for the "bullets" to travel across the cylinder now in comparison to the time for the trip when the cylinder had a diameter of D?


209

31. (continued)1. Two times as long2. Four times as long3. Eight times as longU. One-half as long5. None of the above

Now let's assume the cylinder is rotated. Under this condition, the only "bullet" to enter the cylinder is that one which reaches slit t when the cylinder is in the position above. However, after a number of revolutions, a number of "bullets" will have entered the cylinder and struck the inside. It is found that all of the "bullets" strike the cylinder at point d. Assume the cylinder's diameter is D and that it is rotating at n revolutions per second.

32. If the speed of rotation of the cylinder is increased to 2n revolutions per second, the "bullets" would strike at point:

1. c2. d'3. d U. d"5. e

33. If the diameter of the cylinder is increased to 2D and the speed of rotation is kept at n revolutions per second, the "bullets" will strike at point:

1. c2. d'3. d h. d"5. e

If the speed of rotation of the cylinder is increased, a point is reached where the "bullets" entering the cylinder can pass out without striking the cylinder. The "bullets" will strike the screen at point 0.

3H. How many revolutions of the cylinder are needed while the "bullets" are in the cylinder in order for them to come out and strike at point 0?


210

31*. (continued)1. h2. 2%3. 3kU. 1, 2, and 3 are all correct5. None of the above

35* Under a certain set of operating conditions, it isfound that the "bullets" strike at position d. Suddenly, this point changes to position d'. This shift could be due to:

1. An increase in the number of "bullets" leaving the gun per second

2. An increase in the speed of rotation of the cylinder

3. An increase in the width of the slit at t k. An increase in the speed of the bullets 5. A decrease in the speed of the bullets

36. Instead of bullets, an electron gun fires electronsat the rotating cylinder. It is found that there is no longer one spot or position of maximum impact; but now positions c, d, and e all show maximums.This implies that:

1. The speed of the cylinder is changing between 3 discrete values

2. The speed of the electrons is changing from all values between a maximum and a minimum.

3. The speed of the electrons is changing between 3 discrete values

U . All of the above 5. ffl and 03 above


211

PROBLEMS #37-039Problems 37-39 refer to objects A, B, C, D, and E described below. You may wish to go back and reread thediscussions more than once.Objects A, B, C, D, and E are solid objects whose volumes and densities are given in the table below, A number of identical copies of each of the objects is available. In the following questions, these objects are compared with each other by using a double pan equal arm balance. Density is defined as the mass of an object divided by the volume of the same object (D = M/V). Thus, the mass of an object can be expressed as the density times the volume (M = D x V).

37.

Volume DensityObject A 1 cm3 1 3gm/cmObj e ct B 2 cm3 1 / 3 gm/cmObj e ct C 2 cm3 2 / 3 gm/cmObj ect D *1 cm3 2 gm/cmObject E 3 cm3 1 gm/cmObj e ct D can be balanced b y :

1.2.3.U.5.

ObjectEitherObjectObjectEither

Aobject B or CCBobject A, B , or C

38. Obj ect C can be balanced by:

1. Two obj ect8 identical to A2. Two objects identical to B3. Two objectb identical to Dk. Two obj ects identical to E5. 2 an d 3 are both correct

Some of these objects, and combinations of two objects fastened together, are placed in a liquid of unknown composition, with the following results.


212

Object A floatsObject B floatsObject D sinksObject E floatsObjects A and D together sinkObjects B and D together float

39. The density of the unknown liquid is:3 31. More than 1.0 gm/cm and less than 1.3 gm/cm3 32. More than 1.3 gm/cm and less than 1.5 gm/cm3 33. More than 1.5 gm/cm and less than 1,8 gm/cm3 3U. More than 1.8 gm/cm and less than 2.0 gm/cm

5. The information given is not sufficient todetermine the density of the liquid.


213

PROBLEMS #LO-jS'U 1+

Problems 1*0-1*1* refer to the discussion below. You u?aywish to go back and reread the discussion more than once.

A cube, 5 inches on each side, is painted black. Thiscube is then cut up in such a way that only 1 inch cubesremain (i.e., in regard to problems 15-27, a #5 cube is painted black and then divided into its constituent #1 cubes).

1*0. How many of the 1 inch cubes have 3 and only 3 sides painted black?

1 . 82. 63. H 1*. 105. None of the above

Ul, How many of the 1 inch cubes have 2 and only 2sides painted black?

1. 182. 273. 36 1*. U5 5. 5U

1*2. How many of the 1 inch cubes have 1 and only 1 side painted black?

1. 182. 273. 361*. 1*55. 5*»

1*3 . How many of the 1 inch cubes do not have any sides painted black?

1. 182. 273. 361*. U55. 5U


2lU

1*U. Hov many of the 1 inch cubes have at least which are not painted black?

1. 272. 813. 117k. 1255. None

sides.


215

PROBLEMS #U5-#H8

Problems U5-L8 are individual problems. You may wish to go back and reread them more than once.

U5. How much larger is b/b than 3/bl

k6.

bl.

1. 1/2 larger2. 1/3 larger3. l/’i -arger1+. 1/5 larger5. Hone of the above

A man f'uys a hors e for *90,then 0v -s it back again formake on the t ran8action?

1. $002. $103. $20b. $305. $UoIf si x c at s eat six rats incats will it take to eat 96

How much does he

1 • 62 . 2b3. bQb. 965. HoneHone of the above

U8. A boy istrain coming 60 miles per the near end runs as fast just be able that point, the boy, how

on a railroad trestle (bridge) and hears a toward him. The train is traveling at hour. The boy is 3/8 of the way from of the trestle and knows that if he as he can in either direction he will to Jump to safety when the train reaches Assuming a constant maximum speed for fast can he run?

1. 10 miles per hour2 . 15 miles per hour3. 18 miles per hourb. 20 miles per hour5. 22 miles per hour

STOP


A P P E N D IX F

■db-Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Disc

rimi

nati

on

217

Figure 3Item Difficulty-Discrimination Matrix

Pre-Test

Difficulty

0 10 20 30 UO 50 60 70 80 90 100

10

20

30

UO

50

60

70

80

90

100

7 U611 3 30 U8

39

U 8 12

oi—iLA 1U 36 9 27 U7

i uo 2 13 28 3U

21 33 UU U5

31 18 6 32 20 29 23

26 2U 25 15 37 Ul U2

38 U3

16 17 35 19 22


Disc

rimi

nati

on

218Figure U

Item Difficulty-Discrimination Matrix Post-Test

Difficulty

10

20

30

UO

80

90

100

11

12 7 U6 3

8 10 9 36 30U8

39

U 5 13 3U 1 2 lU 27

15 31 37

6 32 Uo

28 29 3: U7 UU U5

16 18 25

2U 26 38

Ul U5U3 23

17 35 20 21

22 19


REFERENCES CITED

Amidon, Edmund J. and Flanders, Ned A., The Role of the Teacher in the Classroom. Minneapolis: Association for Productive Teaching, Inc., 1967,pp. 1-102.

Aschner, Mary J., "The Analysis of Verbal Interaction in the Classroom." Pp. 53-78 in Theory and Research in Teaching. A. A. Bellack (editor) , Bureau of Publications, Teachers College,Columbia University, New York, 1963. Pp. 1-122.

Ausubel, David P., "An Evaluation of the ConceptualSchemes Approach to Science Curriculum Develop- ment." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (Issue *♦, 1965 ) , pp. 255-261*'.

Aylesworth, Thomas G., "The Need for Problem-Solving."Science Education, IL (March 1965), pp. 156-162.

Barnard, J. D. (Chairman), Rethinking Science Education, Fifty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, i960.Pp. xviii + 3^^.

Bellack, Arno and Davitz, J. R., The Language of theClassroom, Institute of Psychological Research, Columbia University, New York. Mimeo. (Report Cooperative Research Project No. 1^97), 1963.

Biddle, Bruce J., "The Integration of Teacher Effectiveness Research." Contemporary Research in Teacher Effectiveness, B. J. Biddle and W. J. Ellena (editors), Holt, Rinehart, and Winston Inc., 196U. Pp. xiii + 352.

Boeck, Clarence H., "Teaching Chemistry for Scientific Method and Attitude Development." Science Education. XXXVII (March 1953), pp. til-dfc.

Brakken, Earl W., "An Analysis of Some of the Intellectual Factors Operative in FSSC and Conventional High School Physics." Dissertation Abstracts, XXV (March-April 1965) , PP. 5103-510U.

219


2 2 0

Burke, Paul J., "Testing Critical Thinking in Physics." American Journal of Physics. XXVII (December 19^9), pp. 527-532.

Corey, Arthur F. (Chairman), Education and the Spirit of Science. The Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association, Washington, D. C., 1966. Pp. 1-27.

Crumb, Glen H., "Understanding of Science in High School Physics." Journal of Research in Science Teaching , III (Issue 3 , 19^5 ) , pp. 2^-250.

Curtis, Francis, "Basic Principles of Science Teaching."The Science Teacher, XX (March 1953), pp. 5 5-59.

Day, William V/., "Physics and Critical Thinking: AnExperimental Evaluation of PSSC and Traditional Physics in Six Areas of Critical Thinking While Controlling for Intelligence, Achievement,Course Background, and Mobility by Analysis of Covariance." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, 19 6k. Pp. vii + 20k.

Dewey, John, "Methods of Science Teaching." ScienceEducation. XXIX (April-May 19U5) , pp. 119-123.

Downing, Elliot R., "Elements and Safeguards of Scientific Thinking." Scientific Monthly, XXVI (March 1928), pp. 2 31-21*3.

Dressel, Paul and Mayhew, Lewis B. (Directors), General Education: Explorations in Evaluation, FinalReport of the Cooperative Study of Evaluation in General Education. American Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 195U. Pp. xxiii + 302 .

Dunning, Gordon M., "Evaluation of Critical Thinking." Science Education, XXXVIII (April 195*0 » PP • 191-211.

Flanders, Ned A., Interaction Analysis in the Classroom: A Manual for Observers, Revised Edition, School of Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, I96U. Pp. v + 5**.


221

Flanders, Ned A., Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes,and Achievement, United States Office of Education Cooperative Research Monograph Number 12,U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington,D. C. , 1965. Pp. ix + 126.

Flanders, Ned A., "The Problems of Observer Training and Reliability." Pp. 158-166 in Interaction Analysis: Theory. Research, and Application.E.J . Ami don and J . B.Hough (editors) , Palo Alto: Addiscn-Wesley Publishing Company, 1967.Pp. xiii + U02.

Friedman, Francis, Zacharias, Jerrold, Michels, Walter, and Ferris, Fred, "The Relation of the PSSC Physics Course to Conventional High School Courses." The Science Teacher, XXIX (February 1962), pp. U9-55.

Gallagher, J. J. and Aschner, Mary Jane, "A Preliminary Report: Analysis of Classroom Interaction."Merri11-Palmer Quarterly. IX (1983), pp. l83-19^<

Glaser, Edward M., An Experiment in the Development of Critical Thinking. Contributions to Education #8U3, Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, 19^1. Pp. vi + 212 .

Gronlund, Norman E., Measurement and Evaluation inTeaching. MacMillan Company, New York, 19b5«Pp. xii + U20.

Henkel, E. T., "A Study of Changes in Critical Thinking as a Result of Instruction in Physics." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, 1965. Pp. vi + 108.

Heyns, Roger W. and Lippit R., "Systematic Observational Techniques." Pp. 370-U0U in Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume l a G. Lindzey (editor) , Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 195^. Pp. x + 588.

Hipsher, Warren L., "Study of High School Physics Achievement." The Science Teacher. XVIII (October 1961) , pp. 36-38.


222Hough, John B., "An Observational System for the

Analysis of Classroom Instruction." Pp. 150- 157. In Interaction Analysis: Theory,Research, and Application. E. J. Amidon and J. B. Hough (editors), Palo Alto: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1967. Pp. xiii + U02.

Hurd, Archer W . , "Experimental Efforts to Improve theTeaching of Physics." Science Education. XVIII (February 1931*) , pp. 18-22.

Hurd, Paul DeH., "The Case Against High School Physics."School Science and Mathematics. LIII (June 1953), pp. l*39-^9.

. "Newsletter 7." Cambridge: Distributed byHarvard Project Physics, Spring 1968. Pp. 1-15*

Keeslar, Orean, "The Elements of the Scientific Method." Science Education, XXIX (December 19^5), pp. 273-278.

Kerlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Research.New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.,1965. Pp. xix + 739.

Lewin, Kurt, Lippitt, R., and White, R. K., "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created 'Social Climates'." Journal of Social Psychology. X (May 1939) , pp. 271-299.

on, George G., "The Role of Physics in the Emerging High School Curriculum." School Science and Mathematics. LV (March 1955), pp. 211-2165.

on, George G. and Mallinson, Jacqueline, "Inquiry Skills: What Are They, How to Develop Them, Howto Evaluate Them." A Handbook for Science Teachers. Unpublished Paper, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 1970. Pp. 1-17.

D. H. and Mitzel, H. E., "Measuring Classroom Behavior by Systematic Observation." Pp. 2U7- 328 in Handbook of Research on Teaching. N. L.Gage (editor), Chicago: Rand McNally and Co.,1963. Pp. ix + 1218.

Mallins

Mallins

Medley,

©


223Meridith, Charles E., "Development of Problem Solving

in High School Physical Science." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Stanford University,Palo Alto, California, 1961, pp. vi + 89.

Mitzel, H. E. and Rabinovitz, W., "Assessing Social-Emotional Climate in the Classroom by Withall's Technique." Psychological Monographs: General

1967, Number 16 (1953), pp. 1-19.and Applied,

Moore,

Noll,

Jean R., "An Analysis of Teacher and Pupil Verbal Behavior and Teacher Procedural and Evaluative Behavior in Relation to Objectives Unique to the PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics Curricula," Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Michigan,Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1968. Pp. xii + 155.

Victor H. (Chairman), Science Education in American Schools♦ Forty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Chicago, Illinois: The University of ChicagoPress, 19^7. Pp. xii + 306.

Pankratz, Roger S., "Verbal Interaction Patterns in the Classrooms of Selected Science Teachers." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 1966. Pp. ix + 18U.

Pauli, William J., "Confusion and Problem-Solving."Clearing House. XXXV (October i960), pp. 79-82.

Physical Science Study Committee, Teacher's ResourceBook and Guide. Part I, Physics, Second Edition, D. C. Heath and Company, 1965.

Powers, S. R. (Chairman), A Program for Teaching Science, Thirty-First Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I, Bloomington, Illinois, Public School Publishing Company, 1932. Pp. xii + 370.

Rust, Velma I., "Factor Analysis of Three Tests ofCritical Thinking." Journal of Experimental Education. XXIX (December 19^0), pp. 177-l82.

Rust, Velma I., Jones, R. S., and Kaiser, Henry F.,"A Factor-Analytie Study of Critical Thinking," Journal of Educational Research, LV (March 1962), pp. 253-259.

C3


22k

Samph, Thomas, "Observer Effects on Teacher Behavior."Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1968. Pp. viii + llH.

Sawyer, Robert L., "An Investigation of the Effectiveness of the Program Recommended by the Physical Science Study Committee." Dissertation Abstracts, XXIV (June 1961*), pp. 5254-5255.

Smith, B. 0., A Study of the Logic of Teaching: AReport on the First Phase of a Five-Year Research Project. United States Office of Education, Washington, D. C., 1959.

Spence, Janet, Undersood, Benton, Duncan, Carl, and Cotton, John., Elementary Statistics, Second Edition, New York: Appleton-Century Crofts,1968. Pp. ix + 2U5.

Swartz, Clifford E., "The Hawthorne Effect and OtherMysteries." The Physics Teacher, VII (November1969) , pp. U29+.

Thayer, V. T. (Chairman), Science in General Education. Report of the Committee on the Function of Science in General Education, Commission on Secondary School Curriculum, Progressive Education Association, New York: D. Appleton-CenturyCompany, Inc., 1937. Pp. xiii + 591.

Trent, John, "The Attainment of the Concept 'Understanding Science' Using Contrasting Physics Courses." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, III (Issue 3, 1965), pp. 22U-229.

Trowbridge, Leslie W . , "A Comparison of the Objectivesand Instructional Materials in Two Types of High School Physics Courses." Science Education, IL (March 1965), pp. 117-122.

Van Koevering, Thomas E., "The Distinguishing Characteristics of High Schools with High and Low Enrollments in Physics." Unpublished Doctor's Dissertation, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,Michigan, 1969. Pp. vii + lk2.

oReproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

225Watson, Goodwin and Glaser, Edward M . , Watson-Glaser

Critical Thinking Appraisal. Forms YM and ZM Manual, New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World,19^. Pp. 1-16.

Westbrook, Bert W. and Sellers, James R . , "Critical Thinking, Intelligence, and Vocabulary." Educational and Psychological Measurement.XXVII (Summer 19^7), pp. J*U3-HU6.

Withall, John, "The Development of a Climate Index."Journal of Educational Research, VL (October 1951) , pp. 93-100.

Withall, John, "The Development of a Technique for the Measurement of Social Emotional Climate in Classrooms." Journal of Experimental Education. XVII (March 19^9) , pp. 3^7-361.

Zingaro, Joseph S. and Colette, Alfred T., "A Statistical Comparison Between Inductive and Traditional Laboratories in College Physical Science."Journal of Research in Science Teaching, V (Issue 3, 1967-68) , pp. 269-275.


Critical Thinking as Related to PSSC and Non-PSSC Physics ...

Documents